To miss out the full samplerate set would be an awfully crippled release though, don't you think? Many people work at 48khz, it pretty much standard.

 

Maybe, maybe not. There are tools for oversampling/resampling. Also DAWs that can do it. I switched to 96kHz a year ago without any issues so I don’t know.

 

Scarlett vs Ivory. Which one is for you ?

 

Azure!

(actually I was wondering the same, they're so similar I want to delete one of them, but they're so similar I don't know which one do I prefer!)

 

they are slightly different sounding curve and workflow I think. Apart from all other small details, Scarlet or rather SONTEC style EQ is parallel feedforward/feedback topology (like the GML), meaning a 3db cut will cancel out a 3db boost at the same frequency + Q value. I don't really know if it's really the Maselec EQ character, but IVORY is series asymmetrical constant Q design where the boost is tighter in shape, where the cut is slightly looser and the bands are in series. Also Relab is saying that the bell shapes are asymmetrical as well, dont know for sure. So the cut and boost wont cancel each other out. These behavior will give a slight different phase response when bands are interacting with each other, ie. combining boosts and cuts. All IVORY bands (AZURE too) are capable of doing shelves so it could do the classic Pultec style boost/cut shelf on both end, SCARLET cant do this. So they are different sounding EQ, it's not night and day, but considering they are mastering EQ, it probably matter. For the plugins, Scarlet is on HYPER tech, felt cleaner and preamp sound nice when pushed and IVORY is still on the old engine which has the cool sounding AA's artifact that people like but it sounds bad when pushed, a lot of people recommend to turn off the preamp for cleaner mastering work.

I dont quite like the AZURE because I prefer the PA Knif Soma that sounds more crystal clear, compared to AZURE that can blur the transient a bit when the preamp is on. Could be because of the whole Ziko's mastering chain character. Not necessarily a bad thing, just preference.

 

Last edited: Jan 22, 2024

Had these 2 legit for a while (plus Azure, since we're throwing that in too), here's my 2 cents:

-AZURE: closer to the actual Soma hardware than PA's soundwise if that's what you want. Wonky workflow, even for an AA plugin, some shelf bands feel like they are the same even though they are labeled with different frequencies, in PD you can see they are different but super close, don't know what's up with that. Starts bugging out earlier, i rememeber this and HWMC didn't even allow me to use them at lower buffer sizes even without maxing out CPU, don't know what's up with that either. Good sound overall but too many drawbacks for me.
-IVORY: Does pretty much what you would expect it to do, pretty clean, but it also has some weird smearing thing going on in the background, maybe it's the preamp. Not a big deal, but honestly, it's not worth it IMO, not even for the other stuff that comes with it.
-SCARLETT: The only one i kept, pretty nice sounding, very couloury without being too in the nose, and also lighter since the Hyper update. probably the most useful of the three in real life use, but all in al it IS an old design (the hardware, i mean) so you get what you get (i.e. fixed low and high shelves). Overall a pretty cool tool.

That said, don't know if R2R editions have anything different about them, since i don't have them installed (not these ones anyway).

Honestly i've been wondering about this for a while. The original hardware these and others are inspired by do have their own topology/circuit magic and band interaction whatevers, but does AA actually program that into the plugins?

 

Last edited: Jan 22, 2024

Technically NO. AA didn't. Even the amplification stage of the hardware (suppose they are all passive, inductor based EQ) weren't properly done due to their way of doing things. It's just impossible, it's more like limitation of the method (IR) they are using, so they create a "PRE" stage where they squeezed everything in there together.

All those circuit designs, topology and behavior of the hardware will together at the end construct the final frequency response, the EQ curve. AA basically sampled the result, the final EQ curve. Since they sampled all the possible combinations, from my rough tests just randomly checking combination and compare with their algo counterpart, it looks the same. It seems like they didn't left any part of it, everything is sampled. So the plugin should give the same EQ curve and mimic all the bands interaction as the hardware on the same settings.

It's still a debate that some believe it doesnt really matter as long as the final EQ curve successfully replicated the outcome should sound close. Others arguing the process, how it gets there also matter due to technique used in the design. Me personally, I really wish the algo plugins can finally do it properly, but world class listening skill + 20 years experience in music production + wizard level coding + PhD in electrical/electronic field is still an impossible combo. Even if there is, they would be not interested in making plugins.

Yeah I also agree that Scarlet is the better one among them. Keep picking the IK MULTIMEDIA EQ 432 in a blind test tho.

 

This is why/how Acustica Audio exists, I think Giancarlo would be the closest thing to what you mentioned, he has a strong academic background also.

I totally agree about Scarlet and the IK EQ 432 are superbly close in sound, sometimes the IK is more preferable. They make great plugins also, solid DSP.

Ivory can sound a bit dull or smeary as someone else mentioned. Without pre would be better, and it can definitely work on some material, but not for the material I am working on.

Did you have a chance to read my private message?

 

I'm using Make Believe Studios Sontec plugin and I'm very happy with the outcome. Low on cpu and a very transparent style of mastering EQ.

 

I totally forgot about that one. We are all so blessed.

 

Amber 4 "Ultra" just released, sounds really, really good. I wasnt obsessed with the previous version, used it here and there. This new version is something else.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2024

I think the Amber 3 is my most used bundle so far. I don't know what about it. The PRE has some sort sound for Bass tracking, the M5 preamp that is known for DI tracking. That one high shelf band on the EQ and the compressor. I really like the compressor's artifact, I don't know why, the transient smearing feels too good.

I have watched the preview. Damn, looks so interesting and you saying they sound good made me more curious. I dig the new GUI style.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2024

the saturation on the pre's now is very nice. warm and gooey, none of that nasty old acustica stuff. compressor definitely behaves a bit differently, to me, its smoother, but need to spend more time with it and comparing to amber 3. The eq is great, smooth, nice sheen, warm and rounded bottom end. Much snappier action too, quick and easy to dial things in.

 

Me after playing my new pet TIGER for a while :



I think FIRE THE TIGER is super good. So easy to use and it gives what you expect from those type of compression curve. Really obvious too if you know how the SSL style differ from NEVE, API, 670 etc. Can do 1176 style really effectively too. Definitely gonna use this one a lot.

 

Last edited: Feb 2, 2024

Thank you, witches

 

I'm confused (probably just a lack of info). Most members seem to agree that the compressors are AA's weakest part and now a plugin with comps only is suddenly good?

 

-

 

Last edited: Jun 4, 2024

You're talking about the Hyper tech (2 or 3), right?

 

It may have to do something with tiger being very tweakable, maybe that's enough to make up for any remaining wonkyness on an already improved engine.

 

.

 

Last edited: Jun 4, 2024