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
UAD Ampex® ATR-102 Mastering Tape Recorder Plug-In
Old 5th September 2011
  #181
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOHAMI View Post
did you ever try passing that UAD Massive through the B0 conversion? I think I remember you liked the UAD more until you tested the hardware through the Burl?
I didn't. Been too swamped. To clarify, I didn't like the UAD better, but it was almost as nice as the hardware when using Digi 192 converters. When using Burl converters the hardware smoked the plug-in, mostly in the depth of the bottom end, and also in the extended highs, but mostly the low end.

That test illustrates part of why I'm concerned about trying a comparison between another plug-in and it's hardware counterpart. Conversion comes into play, and I'm not necessarily convinced that sending an emulation out through an analog loop would do the same thing as capturing the sound from an analog processor. Maybe...

If I somehow get a lot of free time I'll try to track down some answers.

J~
Old 5th September 2011
  #182
Lives for gear
 
YOHAMI's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trakworx View Post
I'm not necessarily convinced that sending an emulation out through an analog loop would do the same thing as capturing the sound from an analog processor. Maybe...
It shouldnt, but one can dream.
Old 5th September 2011
  #183
Gear Head
 
synergyroom's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubthumper View Post
Nice sounding track synergyroom. Well done. I'd be keen to hear it without the ATR plug also if poss.
I will post the mix without the AMPEX plugin as soon as i get a chance since i'm working on another project at the moment.
I'm using the AMPEX plugin on the new mix and it sounds really good, its subtle but it definitely adds a coat of glue and sheen over the mix.
I was skeptical at first since i already own the STUDER and i thought "great another tape plugin" but you really have to experience it for yourself and hear what it adds to a mix.
Old 5th September 2011
  #184
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenkonio View Post
I already asked this in the other thread... but nobody answered. So, how many samples of latency creates the ATR102 in PT with 256 buffer? Thanks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all UAD plugins introduce the same amount of latency. The latency comes from sending audio streams to the card and back, vs. from the plugins themselves (like you'd see where convolution is used). So the latency from the ATR would be the same as that from the 1176LN.
Old 5th September 2011
  #185
Lives for gear
 
kreeper_6's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkybot View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all UAD plugins introduce the same amount of latency. The latency comes from sending audio streams to the card and back, vs. from the plugins themselves (like you'd see where convolution is used). So the latency from the ATR would be the same as that from the 1176LN.
This is not correct. Some plugs upsample to 192kHz. The 1176 has 12ms/1.3ms Live Mode and the ATR is 63.1ms/52.5ms Live Mode.

The Studer is 13.1ms/2.5ms Live Mode
Old 5th September 2011
  #186
Lives for gear
 
Lenzo's Avatar
I've noticed that when I put the Ampex on a sub buss that Pro Tools has a hard time compensating for the latency. The only other UAD plug it has had a problem with is the Precision Mulitband. Use it on the 2 buss and it's not a issue. The latency is different between the plugs.
L.
Old 5th September 2011
  #187
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by kreeper_6 View Post
This is not correct. Some plugs upsample to 192kHz. The 1176 has 12ms/1.3ms Live Mode and the ATR is 63.1ms/52.5ms Live Mode.

The Studer is 13.1ms/2.5ms Live Mode
Learn something new every day.
Old 5th September 2011
  #188
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Based on a YouTube video. OK.



Based on what actual evidence? Please don't say viewing a YouTube video.
I made a video for one of my drum software products.
I exampled the difference between two different mic set ups on the drums.
It was just to give people a vague impression of what we'd done. I would never expect someone to download the video audio and assume the video audio equaled the actual product.
Like UAD, I never claimed the audio in the video was equal to the sound of the product.
The option seems to be..... don't make videos, or if you make videos, don't give anyone any idea how the product sounds or how different settings make the audio change.
tutt
Ok, i have to comment three post just to clarify a bit....this is the first one. And i'm really sorry that some is a bit off topic :(

First i like to say that i really like many of the UAD plugings! They have made some really really great ones. It's just that some doesn't have that "pro" and "expensive" sound. So where do i start? I guess that you at least one time really have compared a hardware synth with a software? And i'm not talking about those sample-based ones, i mean those non sample-based. The reslut is pretty shocking, right? The soft-synths lacks that "pro" sound, depth and maybe that "angel dust" that the software never can touch.
Of course there are better and worse soft-synths. A good one would be IMO like the Gladiator 2 and a bad one Pro-53 by NI. Well, it's the same things with plug-ins actually, there are some that are just better sounding than others. Some will give you an almost "pro" feeling whilst others will more or less ruin you instrument.
So based on this, do you agree that some UAD plugins sounds more "pro" and gives you a more "expensive" sound than other UAD plugins? If not, then you're fine

Ok, some examples? Well, as i really don't want to criticise too many plugins due to respect for those who actually bought them. I don't want to destroy their "illusion" or something like that...
But as we already have spoken a bit about the 224 Reverb i can commment a bit on this one. And also i can add that the Relab reverb which i previously recommended instead of this isn't better in any way, just different!

And just a short word on the demo-video for the Lexicon 224 . I can't imagine WHY they chosed a sample that had a ringing tone within it in the direct comparison. But what's even stranger is that on the hardware this note is totally gone. Like the hardware version is "masking" it in some way. Very strange indeed!

Well, i tested the 224 plugin a bit more yesterday and it has NOT a ringing tone, so i guess it cant do any real harm. Just use it subtly. And for another character you might take a look at Relab's Lexicon reverb. Sounds great for a plug-in. And the 224 is not that bad sounding either when used subtly. For a plugin that is. And as UAD has a black belt in merketing they said in the video that they spent a year developing the 224. WOW! A WHOLE YEAR! Then is MUST be good! Right?

Ok, so i compared it with some impulses to see what it could deliver. And yes i know there are some BIG limitations whith impulses. But no matter how i tweaked the 224 plugin i couldnt get the same sound as the hardware. I'm sorry to say it, but your're better off using the Acousticas Lexicon 224 Impulses! This is my personal opinion! YMMV bigtime of course! So if they "really" spent a year, maybe they should have spent two years?
But it's a good plugin anyway. Just doesnt have that "expensive" sound :( Not for me anyway!

And i can comment just a bit on the 4K and SSL compressor also. I think they said that the 4K compressor was "faithfully modelled after an SSL desk" when it came. Apparently they got it all wrong as they had to change the time-parameters. And not only that, they changed the coloration of the plug-in. It's not THAT obvious but the 4K has a tad brigher, more tubish color whilst the SSL has a more darker "solid state" color. I personally like the 4K compressor better just because of the color it has compared to the "improved" SSL version. And i know all about this that they cancel each other out in a null test and so on.....but they sound differently, i swear! Too bad that both of them is demolished by the Dunde version That one is more "pro" sounding and has the "right" color, for me anyway. I havent checked the time-parameters regarding the 4K vs the SSL and if UAD "really" changed them. But i will when i have the time.

I will not comment on any more plugin due to the reason i wrote. But i can say that the Trident A-Range is a topic in itself

Hope you're satisfied with the answer! Perhaps not what you wanted, but maybe i surprise you and everybody else instead later on

And as this is a topic about Ampex, and i feel like a hijacker, i have tested this one a bit too now. Certainly more colorful than the Studer! Need to test it more to give a more detailed post though. At this moment i would have chosen the Ampex actually.

/R
Old 5th September 2011
  #189
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grooveminister View Post
Yeah, great - I really like this one.
The guys with golden ears hear the huge difference between the hardware and the plug - maybe 0.5 dB more lo-mids in the original Ampex.

I might have even believed that some must have much better ears than me - If you just hadn´t mentioned the SNARE.
There is no SNARE in this loop - this one is called a TOM-TOM unless it's lars ulrich playing the snare as he will never dare to do it again.

Of course UA did a bad choice of demoing the plug with an already analog sounding multitrack recording.
I´ve demoed the UAD Ampex and put drums with crisp transients on it - and they were rounded out beautifully by the plug.
It´s true the kind of audio material shown in the video cannot showcase the potential of this audio tool.

Best Wishes,
Andreas
Yeah! But as i wrote the message some time after i forgot what the heck he was hitting Too lazy changing it, that's all....
/R
Old 5th September 2011
  #190
Gear Addict
 
Beechwood's Avatar
 

Seriously, this is making me want to poke myself in the eye.
Old 5th September 2011
  #191
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Fox View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rymdis
But at the end, do we really need tape warmth? Well, as everything is now digital i think we actually do. I was at my brothers house a few weeks ago and had bought himself a record player. A bit old but had good reviews. It happened that he actually had the same album both on CD and vinyl, so we compared them of course. It was night and day difference i can say. The vinyl was MUCH more pleasing to listen to. Had a warmer, fullier bass and overall an "analog" touch that the CD didn't had. So i think we need some warmth in this digital world. Making everything inside the box will make the outside cry for warmth!


Where that facepa... oh, there it is...

This is a prime example why it's always "analog is better".


Both are still mediums, with their respective strenghts and weaknesses. Granted CD is more versatile, easier to handle and maintenanced, but saying that vinyl is ultimately the superior medium is somewhat false.

For example:
- Vinyl has a certain loudness limitation (this is actually a good thing!), but does have a certain noise floor as well (not so a good thing since you have a limited dynamic range).
- Vinyl needs a narrowing of the stereo field else the needle jumps ouf the rails
- Vinyl only sounds as good as the provided player and preamp

And this is the main reason why we prefer vinyl over CD. The record player has a built in RIAA module that inverts the courve used while cutting the medium. This one can differ greatly(!) among the builds (firms), resulting in an overemphasised sound which we think is "more warm". Add to that the preamp of your stereo for the recorder.

CD doesn't have these limitations (let's assume both mediums had the same level). It smacks into our face what the engineer actually did (with some missing harmonics beyond 20kHz of course). There is no sweetening RIAA courve, there is no whitewashing from playing from tape, there is no preamp that raises the signal to line level. Forget all that.

Take a look at Beatles recordings from the 60ies and early CD ports. The whole lowend was mostly missing. Why? Because the engineers worked that way! 2 to 3 Band EQs, and focus on speaker systems that couldn't reach down to 20Hz. (Transistor) Radios didn't have as large cones as we're used to now (think 2" to 4" max!). Also, the old medium back in the day was less forgiving if you had ton of lowend in your recordings.


If you want the old sound from yesteryear, know your enemy, know your limitations, forget all the tape machine "only" mojo to dirt up your recorded material. Especially if you want to overdrive these devices on purpose, or if you didn't know it better.


What you think is superior is actually a step back. I don't say it's bad, it's still great for learning how to do it "right" on the long run. But seeing it as only holy grail is just wrong in my opinion.
The medium is totally irrelevant in this case, of course, as i just took an example out of the blue. It coud have been another medium like a tape recorder, a preamp or whatever. I tought that it was pretty clear that i just compared the digital world with a non-digital world, and how much better that was sounding. I answered my own question: Do we really need tape warmth? Or warmth in general?

Maybe a bit clumsy expressed...

/R
Old 5th September 2011
  #192
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechwood View Post
Seriously, this is making me want to poke myself in the eye.
You're right man....bad day..cleaned it up somewhat. Thanks!

/R
Old 6th September 2011
  #193
Lives for gear
 
Digibear's Avatar
Could we get back on track, so to speak? Can anyone with both the plugin and an actual ATR 102 talk about the differences?
Old 6th September 2011
  #194
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
It's AMPEX (registered trademark symbol) "authenticated"?? yet AMPEX has been out of business for decades.

How does that work?

Who "authenticated" it?
Old 6th September 2011
  #195
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
It's AMPEX (registered trademark symbol) "authenticated"?? yet AMPEX has been out of business for decades.

How does that work?

Who "authenticated" it?
It is really about receiving revenue for the official use of the 'Ampex' brand name. It may not necessarily mean it is the 'best' and most authentic emulation of the machine but UAD has the 'blessing' of Ampex to use their name on the plug. If the plugin sounded absolutely awful then Ampex may have witheld their permission to use their brand name - so I guess we can assume they are happy with it...
Old 6th September 2011
  #196
Lives for gear
 
blim's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechwood View Post
Seriously, this is making me want to poke myself in the eye.
If you do decide to go ahead and poke yourself in the eye, would you mind videotaping it and posting the video to this thread. Thanks!
Old 6th September 2011
  #197
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by noiseflaw View Post
It is really about receiving revenue for the official use of the 'Ampex' brand name. It may not necessarily mean it is the 'best' and most authentic emulation of the machine but UAD has the 'blessing' of Ampex to use their name on the plug. If the plugin sounded absolutely awful then Ampex may have witheld their permission to use their brand name - so I guess we can assume they are happy with it...
NO, absolutely not. Ampex has been out of business for a long time. There is no one that speaks for the defunct Ampex company.

That is the whole nature of my question. They act like they have the endorsement of Ampex when in fact the old Ampex company has no spokesmen. Either officially or on an unofficial basis. What a joke.

I'm a real pro who remembers business meetings at the Ampex headquarters in Redwood City, CA. You caint fool me.
Old 6th September 2011
  #198
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
NO, absolutely not. Ampex has been out of business for a long time. There is no one that speaks for the defunct Ampex company.

That is the whole nature of my question. They act like they have the endorsement of Ampex when in fact the old Ampex company has no spokesmen. Either officially or on an unofficial basis. What a joke.

I'm a real pro who remembers business meetings at the Ampex headquarters in Redwood City, CA. You caint fool me.
I believe Harmon "owns" Ampex now. Actually, in the UA video there's an interview with the "CEO" of Ampex.
Old 6th September 2011
  #199
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
NO, absolutely not. Ampex has been out of business for a long time. There is no one that speaks for the defunct Ampex company.

That is the whole nature of my question. They act like they have the endorsement of Ampex when in fact the old Ampex company has no spokesmen. Either officially or on an unofficial basis. What a joke.

I'm a real pro who remembers business meetings at the Ampex headquarters in Redwood City, CA. You caint fool me.
But you do understand how intellectual property works, right?

- c
Old 6th September 2011
  #200
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Thumbs down

Ampex closed their audio division decades ago. Now a portion of the company, Ampex in name only, makes data storage equipment. Is that the tape recorder business?

Harman has nothing to do with Ampex and neither does anyone at "Ampex" have anything to do with tape recorders, tape recorder sound, "sound of tape," or anything else having to do with the nonsense stated by UA.

I think it is misleading. If I want the sound of tape then I will just use my well maintained and "functioning fantastically" tape recorders in an actual recording studio.

What a joke and what a disingenuous claim by UA.
Old 6th September 2011
  #201
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
But you do understand how intellectual property works, right?

- c
Don't get high handed with me.
Old 6th September 2011
  #202
Gear Head
 
InvertedPhase's Avatar
 

Tried it today

Like it a lot. That's all I'm saying. Okay, doing work with a 50's/60's style girl fronted band that wants some vintage vibe. just using on stereo mixdown, not tracks or subgroups ... yet. Subtle or harsh. Interesting.
Its raining and I have beer and a 2 week demo...
Old 6th September 2011
  #203
Lives for gear
 
Agzilla's Avatar
 

two weeks worth of beer?


is it as good as that real beer we used to drink back in the day?


Zz.
Old 6th September 2011
  #204
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Don't get high handed with me.


I'm just joshing with you, man.

Nobody is confused about what happened here and it's not shocking or pernicious.

You can buy a Vox AC30 today in Guitar Center. Is it the same Vox from 1964? Probably not. Has the company changed hands multiple times? Yes. Is anybody scandalized? Probably not.

Everybody understands that today's Ampex is not yesterday's Ampex.

- c
Old 6th September 2011
  #205
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
No, the partnership was in the works before the Waves thing was brought to market.

Also: the Waves thing is a WHOLLY DIFFERENT vibe. It's waaay more antique than the ATR 102. Unrelated product.

Also, the Studer's great, but this is an important fact: It is modeled after a multi-track 2" tape, not a mixdown deck. So if you use it on your mix, it's like mixing down to two tracks of a 2" 24-track. In the real world, you would never do this. I keep trying to point this out to people. The ATR 102 is modeled after 1/4" 1/2" and even 1" (!) mixdown decks.

It's a significant fact not to be overlooked. It's not a minor detail.

- c
Thanks for the clarification on this. I have to say though the Studer for me does it all, at the mixing stage and at the mastering stage. There are so many different flavors on the Studer that I don't need any other tape emulator. The Waves was $99 and if you want another flavor, go for it. But now another tape emulator. When is enough, enough? But hey there are many who want to keep spending money on more and more plug ins. If it makes you happy
Old 6th September 2011
  #206
Lives for gear
 

digital is still a moving target with great improvements being made every few months. So enough is never enough for most.
Old 7th September 2011
  #207
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by work2do View Post
digital is still a moving target with great improvements being made every few months. So enough is never enough for most.
True but as an engineer you need to be the best with the gear you have. Focus on your studio, and getting clients. Don't be so consumed on the latest plug in that is coming out every month. That causes you to waste your energy on things that are not as important. Check on new gear once every quarter, not everyday. Don't spend endless hours on the forums everyday. It's an addiction to many who can't stop being on the forums all the time
Old 7th September 2011
  #208
Lives for gear
 
Big_Bang's Avatar
 

Now if UAD made an emulation of the old 888 converters, now THAT would be something heh

Actually, I cant wait to get to final mix stage a try the demo of the Ampex!
Old 7th September 2011
  #209
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tube World View Post
True but as an engineer you need to be the best with the gear you have. Focus on your studio, and getting clients. Don't be so consumed on the latest plug in that is coming out every month. That causes you to waste your energy on things that are not as important. Check on new gear once every quarter, not everyday. Don't spend endless hours on the forums everyday. It's an addiction to many who can't stop being on the forums all the time
This should be a sticky...
Old 8th September 2011
  #210
Gear Maniac
 

So true! This was actually the first plugin that i wrote something about. Yeah, don't spent too much time analyzing the new stuff. Does it sound good to you, then that's enough! Don't even listen to what other people think. From my own experiences, this is often not the case anyway
I know it's hard not to, as i do comparions myself before buying a new plugin, but try to go with what YOU think! And do you REALLY need a new tape plugin? Or do you even need a tape effect at all? You can come a very very long way with just an EQ and a compressor. So try to master those first. Most of what the tape plugs does can actually be done with an EQ and a compressor. Maybe not EXACTLY the same, but similar, and sometimes even better.

But i will post some real alternatives soon here for the UAD's stuff. It's for all of you, including myself, that just can't afford the plugins, even on sale :(
And you will be pretty surprised

And remember that even if it's the latest, that doesn't automatically means that it's better! There are some really old plugins that are just ACE! Both UAD and native!

And if this Ampex is between you and a hit record, then there's probably something wrong with your mix

/R
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