1: T-Racks
2: Waves

 

Woooohooo :D

 

Dang, was hoping to comment before the results were up. But I didnt really like either. 1 did sound fuller, but at the same time the tone of the track sounded bad to me. 2, I actually like the tone of it better but it seemed like the dynamics of it were getting mangled.

Maybe this is why I use The Glue. ;)

 

yeah sounded good. in isolation at least. might not work in a mix though. can we download the files please?

 

I believe Waves modeled a SSL 4000E while Duende is based on a SSL 9000K. Different consoles each with a rather distinct sound thus a clear comparison can't really be made. And why are you taking advice for a sales rep pushing their own product in the first place? Also, being good at designing analog hardware doesn't always translate into being able to emulate that hardware with a plugin.

That being said I never really liked Waves rendition and sort of gravitated towards Duende personally. The EQ in Duende doesn't even compare to AlexB's Modern or Classic Logic eQs though especially when boosting mid and high frequencies. I still like their Stereo Bus Compressor though over AlexB's 4KD Dynamics Collection (SSL 4000E GComp), and Cupwise's Slick 9k A+B Bundle (SSL XLogic X-Rack Dynamics Module XR618). Sadly you just can't quite emulate compressors with Nebula yet.

 

About Duende:

"The Duende algorithms are straight off the C200 board which is a post production board using digital eq and compression. You would not find it on a music studio, guys like Andy Wallace and CLA and others use analog SSL boards usually 4000's or 9000's fitted with 4000 series modules. The C200 boards are used in studios where they are mixing tv shows and commercials and sounds for media. This isn't a knock on C200 or Duende.

Also, since the Duende algorithms are straight off the C200 it makes them several years older than the Waves algorithms. Just throwing that out there".

-Some dude at Gearslutz

 

Dont hear that on my computer but nr1 sounds way better than nr 2

 

#1 by far, but both sound quite sterile to me. Definitely something going very wrong in #2 regardless. There are basically no mids in #2 with a very scooped sounding eq, and the highs sound super grainy.

 

1 all the way

 

This kind of test is really interresting! I used to take classic emulations plugins in the Waves Stuff, never tried the T-Racks ones and, for me that sounds way better! Maybe a bit too shiny but assuredly depper! We had to do that more often with adding few more propositions! Thanks for the blind test!

 

I won't get into all my business but asking the head of SSL's R&D Dept., a question,
is not exactly "taking" his advice or that of a sales rep.
That said, you'd be quite the glib professional not to ask about their hardware emulation
vs. the competition. That's just common sense.

As for Nebula compression, it's much improved since the early days.
Even better with the Core 7 engine and more usable with the ZL version plugin.
Updates to old libraries will yield even better results I'm told.

 

Last edited: Feb 1, 2016

For me still 2, because I listened through monitors and I focused on what would make it cut through the mix. Besides the fact that the EQ moves themselves were not so great, so was the material. SSL EQs can be – from what I read – very aggressive. And that's what you have in #2. Number 1 sounded like your usual EQ curves that could be achieved with any clean digital parametric EQ like Fabfilter or whatever. I miss that aggressiveness in the Solid EQ by N.I. as well.

 

#1, by far.
Btw, comparing two plugins with the exact same settings is kind of pointless. Even though they're supposed to model the very same hardware. There are still slight differences between two devices. Maybe with different settings, or if you'd have started to mix with #2 and then copy to #1, #2 would have sounded better than #1.

 

Yeah, and we all listened through these :

Don't confuse "harshness" with "agressiveness".
Also, you tell it from what "you've read", not from your real experience with the real deal.
What's your monitors? Rokits? I know these lacks highs but have big lows (which is the perfect misleading combo to make you choose Drums #2).

 

Last edited: Feb 2, 2016

Asking a person that work for a particular company if their plugins is better than a competitor?

Hmm do you THINK he would have answer "yeah" we did a plugin emulation of one of our desc:s and so did Waves and hey i have to tell you that the Waves is the best emulation??

Try the same thing with a Waves employee or for that matter any other company employees
Do you really think they will say that a competitor is better?
Especially not in USA where i guess you will be fired if you say anything shitty against the company you work for if the business management find out that you said so.

 

No disrespect to you, but your test is fundamentally flawed. #1 is louder than #2. Decades of studies on the matter show that 'louder' is perceived as 'better', and your poll results are likely to be skewed to that extent. I downloaded both and put a meter on them to verify what I heard. The readings I've attached are from the same section in both files.

 

Apparently, reading comprehension is not some guys strong suite.
It's actually amazing how selective reading works. LOL

*NOTE* The question was never, "Which plugin is better? SSL's or Waves?"
That question would've been glib, rude and a waste of time knowing the answer.
Instead, asking the head of R&D their thoughts on the emulation of their hardware,
by a giant in plugin emulation, like Waves,
was the far more intelligent discussion to have.

In return he explained SSL's process vs. Waves and in "his" conclusion,
not mine, deemed Duende, the superior product on a whole.

Now, it goes without saying, everyone thinks they make a great product.
Is that even necessary to say? That's obvious.
The ACTUAL point here, is there's a difference between the plugins,
based on factors some may not have thought about or
even known in any great detail.
Whether it matters to you, is subjective.
Take it or leave it.

The sharing of information and experiences,
shouldn't meet such glib commentary, but it's the internet. LOL

 

Last edited: Feb 2, 2016

Ha I couldn't agree with you more. I, for one, listened through some Dyn BM6As...And they told me that #2 was far worse. The source material wasn't very good to begin with, but fun comparison. He needs to match the gain staging to get a more accurate depiction of what he is trying to highlight, anyway.

 

Last edited: Feb 2, 2016

Yeah, but that +dbs extra on #1 if they're "located" around the very-low frequencies then it wouldn't be a big problem, especially if you judge it by the fletcher munson hearing curve.
Anyway, probably the OP just wanted to show the out straight results of these plugins by sharing the same exact settings even if the end result of each would differ slightly. But yeah, loudness can bias the listener.

 

Hello lads. I'm back with another test. First of all, I want to thank you all for your replies. As I promised, I tried another emulations, now Duende from SSL & Solid Mix from NI. This time I mixed live drums from mr. Hugo Ribeiro. Some of the plugs suprised me how nice and balanced they sound. But only one of them all can handle the room & verbs quite nice, which was really disappointing. Needless to say that the plugins were set to the very same settings. So, I won't tell you which plugin is which, but T-Racks, Duende, Solid Mix and Waves are in-game. Make your decisions and write me which one you like the most soundwise, I'll share the results later

 

Last edited: Feb 6, 2016