Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lagerfeldt]

The reason why it clips is simply the transients of course, not a design fault as such. I guess you already know this.

But I would play around with it some more and find the right settings that don't peak as easily, it is a bit more complex than the Waves Renaissance. For instance you have both the two modes I & II, combined with the 4 sidechain options, and combined with the crush & hold function.

I find it can do stuff the Renaissance can't do, it will preserve some more transients while still being quite hot. I find this great for a variety of things while mixing, for instance percussion or some drums will sound infinitely better using the Sonalksis than the Renaissance.

For mastering I'm not so sure how I like it, I was talking about mixing.

[Pingu]

lagerfeldt wrote on Thu, 09 March 2006 07:54

The reason why it clips is simply the transients of course, not a design fault as such. I guess you already know this. But I would play around with it some more and find the right settings that don't peak as easily, it is a bit more complex than the Waves Renaissance. For instance you have both the two modes I & II, combined with the 4 sidechain options, and combined with the crush & hold function. I find it can do stuff the Renaissance can't do, it will preserve some more transients while still being quite hot. I find this great for a variety of things while mixing, for instance percussion or some drums will sound infinitely better using the Sonalksis than the Renaissance. For mastering I'm not so sure how I like it, I was talking about mixing.

Yes i prefer it for mixing as well.

Overall i try to stay away from plugs that give you too many options as i tend to spend too much time tweaking.
I find the 315 can get a bit too tweaky.

[lagerfeldt]

Pingu wrote on Thu, 09 March 2006 01:46

[I find the 315 can get a bit too tweaky.

Yup, so just pull the threshold and let the autogain do the rest  

[Bob Olhsson]

The problem with most plug-ins is simply that they are too adjustable and many of the settings sound pretty bad.

With a little guidance, I was surprised to find my students had no problem at all making no-brainer better sounding masters using just the stuff that comes for free with Pro Tools than several before/after demos we found on the web that had used many thousands of dollars worth of "usual suspect" hardware. I'm sure it took lots longer which can be a problem when it comes to maintaining objectivity and the same approach to using hardware may well have produced superior results.

Still there is no question that the ability to visualize where you want to go combined with the ability to judge if you've really made an improvement counts more than any list of gear.

[Glenn Bucci]

lagerfeldt wrote on Wed, 08 March 2006 03:49

Yes, it an above average software compressor. However, it still has a long way to go in comparison with the real thing. I'd rate it 7/10. There was two different tests on Gearslutz, in both tests I picked the real SSL without hesitation. However, almost 40 or 50% couldn't hear the difference. The main differences is that the Waves SSL pumps too much, it has a more confined sound overall, less low end, less punch, less stereo, not as open.

I would not hold too much weight on this test. The guy said he used strong settings so you could really hear it. If you changed the attack on the Waves SSL, you can control the pumping.

You will see a in depth review in EQ magaizine on the Waves SSL plug ins in the near future.  

[robot gigante]

Revelation wrote on Thu, 09 March 2006 21:29

lagerfeldt wrote on Wed, 08 March 2006 03:49 Yes, it an above average software compressor. However, it still has a long way to go in comparison with the real thing. I'd rate it 7/10. There was two different tests on Gearslutz, in both tests I picked the real SSL without hesitation. However, almost 40 or 50% couldn't hear the difference. The main differences is that the Waves SSL pumps too much, it has a more confined sound overall, less low end, less punch, less stereo, not as open. I would not hold too much weight on this test. The guy said he used strong settings so you could really hear it. If you changed the attack on the Waves SSL, you can control the pumping. You will see a in depth review in EQ magaizine on the Waves SSL plug ins in the near future.

My own test vs. a Smart C2 gave me the same conclusions.  I would also rate the Waves a 7/10 (which is a good mark for a plugin comp coming from me- I don't like 'em).  I kind of like a little pumping with the C2 (for mixing, not mastering) and it still stays nice and punchy and keeps a solid low end, unlike the plugin, which messes with it.  You can hear the difference in the harmonic content, and also the way the plugin comp doesn't grab and let go as smoothly- it's kind of sketchy.

I think that it can be a useful plugin, so is Digidesign Impact (which I tested and would also rate about a 7 or so out of 10- sounds pretty close to the Waves actually), but I don't know if I would want to run a mix through it... and the C2 definitely stays in the rack!

[lagerfeldt]

Revelation wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 03:29

I would not hold too much weight on this test. The guy said he used strong settings so you could really hear it. If you changed the attack on the Waves SSL, you can control the pumping.

Well, he did use almost identical settings, including testing for nulling. And since Waves claims it is a complete emulation, identical settings should yield identical results, which it didn't.

But the pumping is one thing, the confined stereo image is another. No setting is responsible here, I think. That's the sound of the plug-in versus analog hardware IMO.

But 7/10 is still a good software compressor, it's just not identical to the real thing. If I remember correctly my preference was 1. SSL 2. URS 3. Waves SSL in the second test.

[Pingu]

lagerfeldt wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 17:06

Revelation wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 03:29 I would not hold too much weight on this test. The guy said he used strong settings so you could really hear it. If you changed the attack on the Waves SSL, you can control the pumping. Well, he did use almost identical settings, including testing for nulling. And since Waves claims it is a complete emulation, identical settings should yield identical results, which it didn't. But the pumping is one thing, the confined stereo image is another. No setting is responsible here, I think. That's the sound of the plug-in versus analog hardware IMO. But 7/10 is still a good software compressor, it's just not identical to the real thing. If I remember correctly my preference was 1. SSL 2. URS 3. Waves SSL in the second test.

What does the 10 stand for?

[nmw]

agreed with the others,
the issue of compression settings was inconsequential to most of the test IMHO save the actual comparison portion

the version that turned out to be hardware sounded immediately better than the others IMHO. it was more open, had more depth, didnt sound terrible, call it whatever you want but it was IMHO easily discernable despite the actual drums sounds being less than optimal in all three
my immediate thoughts, within a few seconds, were, that sounds like hardware, the other two like software and it turned out to be the case.

what this says about these software comps is that they arent good enough, the fact that neither then sounded anything like the SSL is another blow to their raison d'etre.

had i built a DIY hardware manley vari-mu or the likes here at home and posted up results with such a big difference i have no doubt i would have been laughed at and told in no uncertain terms how it sounded nothing like it etc etc yet software companies do the same thing all the time and people applaud them, give them great reviews etc etc.
to my mind theres no difference, it either sounds the same or it doesnt.

[Pingu]

Quote:

had i built a DIY hardware manley vari-mu or the likes here at home and posted up results with such a big difference i have no doubt i would have been laughed at and told in no uncertain terms how it sounded nothing like it etc etc yet software companies do the same thing all the time and people applaud them, give them great reviews etc etc. to my mind theres no difference, it either sounds the same or it doesnt.

Thats true.

But they help kick it off with a lot of hype with their marketing and paying respected guys to give it praise when it dont deserve it.

[lagerfeldt]

Pingu wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 10:55

What does the 10 stand for?

1/10 is the lowest possible score, 10/10 is perfection. A common rating system used by many magazines and websites, and a common reference point.

[Pingu]

lagerfeldt wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 21:09

Pingu wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 10:55 What does the 10 stand for? 1/10 is the lowest possible score, 10/10 is perfection. A common rating system used by many magazines and websites, and a common reference point.

In this case the perfection of simulating the SSl console.

[Pingu]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 00:17

The problem with most plug-ins is simply that they are too adjustable and many of the settings sound pretty bad. With a little guidance, I was surprised to find my students had no problem at all making no-brainer better sounding masters using just the stuff that comes for free with Pro Tools than several before/after demos we found on the web that had used many thousands of dollars worth of "usual suspect" hardware. I'm sure it took lots longer which can be a problem when it comes to maintaining objectivity and the same approach to using hardware may well have produced superior results. Still there is no question that the ability to visualize where you want to go combined with the ability to judge if you've really made an improvement counts more than any list of gear.

Thats interseting and a bit of an eye opener.

[robot gigante]

FWIW, the comparisons that I made were based on my own tests, although I did also run the uncompressed files from the Gearslutz comparison through the Smart with the same conclusions.

I also had a non-engineer musician friend of mine in the room and he had the same impression as me (this was in our mix room with KRK monitoring and a Rosetta 800 for conversion, I imagine the differences would even more apparent in the mastering room through the B&W's and with better conversion and acoustics etc).

The 1 - 10 scale in my mind is a combination of usability and closeness to emulating the hardware.  I think the Waves is a 7 on both points (which isn't that bad for a plugin comp).

I totally agree that the plugin closes up the sound, when comparing it to the Smart this was most apparent in the low end but also throughout the entire frequency range.

[Glenn Bucci]

I agree the Waves SSL is not identical to the real thing. However I would give it an 8 in my book. That is an 8 for the EQ, channel strip and G compressor. I doubt without hearing an A/B comparison, most though could tell which one was used on a mix. But heck I paid $600 bucks for a a emulation of a SSL G compressor, EQ, and channel strip. The SSL G compressor alone is $2,800 or a little higher. Then you still have to deal with D/A into the unit and A/D back in.

I know, this forum is more for the pros out there. But it's nice to know us project studio owners who can't afford all the hardware can get a little closer to the high end gear than ever before.

Found this on the web; "Bob Ludwig of Gateway Mastering Studios recently took delivery of two Solid State Logic XLogic compressors. The sale was made by Professional Audio Design (PAD). The XLogic multichannel compressor will reside in the room primarily operated by Bob Ludwig and will handle the ever-growing demand for surround mastering, while the XLogic G series compressor will be located in the stereo room operated by Ludwig’s prot