the api eq from waves and compressors how do they compare to the ones from universal audio?

i used to use the api eq back in the days does pretty good job but i wonder about the ones from uad

API Collection | Bundles

 

Not bad at all, but I'd always pick the UAD ones in the end. If you ask me, Pink is the best out there when comes to sounding closer to analog.

You can Demo "Salt" by Acustica Audio, there you have a pretty close to analog sound, and you can choose: SSL, API or Neve per band. Also very low CPU-impact imho.

 

i prefer UAD's over Waves, and Nebula - Tim P (new), and Alex B over UAD.

 

The 2500 is pretty much what you would expect, a little punchier and brighter. The eqs i've only tried the ones on the Vision channel strip, same story.

in terms of harmonic content i remember the waves having a bit of a fuller low mid thing going on, while uad has more high mid content.

Other than that, last time i checked UAD has less aliasing (if you care about that) when working at lower sample rates (without adding extra steps, that is) but that was a while ago. If you want to compare yourself i'd say lindell is a closer comparison to uad than waves.

 

that new Tim P... hooooo boy, shit smokes

 

I love Waves API stuff and i don't see any reason to use any 500 series plugins other than Waves. One of the few plugins that do exactly what i want em to do, they sound exactly like i want em to sound.

If want the API console flavor, i'm using AlexB because he sampled all the stages of the 1608 console and did a great job doing that.

 

UAD's were developed with and approved by API, which is why they're the only ones that can legally call it an 'API channel strip' so if API liked it...

I used the Waves until UAD went native. Waves aren't bad, but the UAD is the full channel strip from a Vision console along with a line driver from another module, it's not JUST the EQ. If you've used API hardware before, you know if you want the API sound, you don't just tack on the EQ, you need to start at the beginning with the full channel strip.

 

I was a long time SSL console fanboy having logged thousands on all size SSL's, but after using the UAD API in many studios and then loving AA's Pink when it came out, I bought myself a hardware API Box (SN:00226) for personal use and have been using it since 2018. I've really come to love the API tone and punch and here are my plugin thoughts.

1. TimP's API would be my first call in software and I use it with my hardware at times. The tone is there and it lacks in only not being able to really drive it like you can the hardware, but no software does that properly and why we still spend for the hardware.

2. Pink would be second in software, but there is something off in the high end next to my hardware, and after using the hardware I don't use Pink.

3. UAD is solid for the API tone but lacks the true API bite IMHO.

4. Salt is like API lite, too timid and sterile next to the hardware IMHO.

I will not use Waves API.... lol. Best thing I can say is it has nice graphics.

To each their own tool choices, and always test for yourself.

 

Last edited: Dec 4, 2025 at 8:15 PM

Sonimus A-console with A-EQ and then for comp use the Lindell Audio SBC 2500

(i also loved also the pulsar The IPA 25)

not fan of UAD ..... and waves used to be my goto long ago still sounds ok but I prefer the tones I can achieve with the Sonimus and Lindell plugin alliance really top

 

As well as Waves.

The schematics of an 1608 console are not that complex. In fact they are very simple. All 2520 OP Amps on the 500 series. They are not meant to distort. That's where the line driver comes in, which are tools for that task (distortion) and they are not by deafult on the console. It's an 'bonus' you get from the UAD Channel Strip. Another 'bonus' is the compressor. The 1608 would not have compressor by deaful on the Channel.

For the line drive that's what UAD website says:

Spoiler: UAD

Punch up signals through the 212L preamp with API’s famed 2520 op-amp and custom transformers

So, the UAD stuff is not an exact copy of an API console channel. That would be very boring. So they give you that extra stuff to sound more 'premium'. Not just an emulation of pure 2520.

As long as i want to replicate the schematics of the console, from the channel input to busses and 2buss, i will rely on AlexB as i mentioned before. The magic thing about 1608 was the 500 series slots where you can patch any compatible piece of gear to the desk. It's more like a workflow and philosofical approach, instead of "give me that made sound".

 

I own Acustica Pink and I agree about the highs sounding a little off, but the compressor is awesome. It adds a nice weight and body to a mix that no other compressor in my toolkit does. As for API EQ - Slate's FG-A sounds really nice, better than Pink IMO.

 

Waves Api Eqs are punchier than waves and the 2500 comp too.
3 top mixing engineers, friends of mine, they prefer the waves api emulations from the UAD.

 

I wonder how this approval works.
"Can we use your Name?"
"Yes, it costs X $"

 

Hey Will, I would love to hear some sound comparisons, do you have any?

Cheers, Zen.

 

UAD isn't emulating a 1608, they're emulating a Vision console. Two different pieces of hardware. The Line Driver might be an add on, but the mic preamp and its internal path is still there as it should be.

 

But besides the ergonomics and the fact that the Vision console have a dynamics section it will stay the same because every API channel have the same architecture.

It's not me saying that. It's Automated Processes, INC. developer. You can hear him say at 3:25 of this video: