You might find this interesting. I have a couple of theories and answers as to why its so drastic. What sample rate are you working at? Because if you look at the way Universal Audio changed their oversampling scheme when they started building plugins back around 2009 with the Fatso Jr/Sr its not good before this it was different. The free LA2Tube compressor has this filter. I record mostly folk/bluegrass music and acoustic instruments so and I owned 2 Apollo 16s with a console and a Apollo Twin with a Satellite for an editing rig the conversion is good. But I mostly work at 96K because our clients ask for it. This might be a long post but informative if you want to know more about UAD plugins. So one day I had to do an in the box mix for a client and I started using the UAD plugins across my mix, I noticed the top end was starting to sound kind of dull and weird, so I check my masterbus with Voxengo Span and to my shock everything above 24K was gone and I had a huge build up at the brickwall. I thought I had a broken satellite that was mismatching the sampling rate and I tried numerous things like moving the plugins to the Apollo, restarts, and so on but nothing changed. Then I read the UAD plugin manual and it cleared it all up they are cheating the system and use marketing speak to explain it. They even had Sound on Sound write and article to legitimize their marketing. It's called (Why do Universal Audio restrict the processing bandwith of their UAD plug-ins?) I still own their hardware and as long as you know what plugins to avoid at high sampling rates its fine. So here is what is happening the UAD plugins are only capable of 48K internal processing no matter the sampling rate. What this means is the total bandwidth of 90% of their plugins is 0-24K up to 96K and 0 to 21,5K at 192. I use to think this was just a limitation of the 25 year old DSP SHARC chips they used on the Apollo and Satellite devices. But when they went native versions came out I was shocked that they still had this blatant problem. I've talked to other developers about this and they have told me numerous problems could arise from this not just the obvious Aliasing caused by a mismatched anti-aliasing filter at the wrong frequency. This is also why the reported plugin latency is not linear multiples across sampling rates and varies wildly depending on your session's sampling rate. So when UAD started doing this in 2009, 44,1K was still the majority sampling rate for DAW sessions but when the Movie industry moved to 48K no one noticed but around 2014 when video games, TV shows and movies companies started asking for 96K people started to notice and then the marketing spin started. If you look at the back of the UAD plugin manual under the chapter market "UAD and high definition audio" they smear the lines between truth and marketing, but they at least give a list of the plugins that include this mismatched anti-aliasing filter. Basically the conclusion other plugin developers told me is basically if you work at sampling rates above 48K you should test the UAD plugins to see if they include these filters because they can cause major phase coherency issues especially if you use the wet/dry mix option and even UAD say not to use the mix knob on your masterbus (which is what made me suspicious) So this antialiasing filter is a major problem and can cause the UAD plugins to sound different making transients harsher as well as causing frequency masking in the top end which can dull or brighten the material depending on how it hits the mismatched filtering. Its just plain silly that UAD use this for their native plugins without the option to turn it off. No one else does this and even other companies on the UAD DSP platform don't have this issue (only UAD themselves) Softube, Brainworx, and Sonnox don't do this and their plugins are exactly the same on DSP as native and perform to spec. Nowhere on earth will you find a API mic preamp or channelstrip that cuts off hard at 24K like the UAD plugin. Your Allen & Heath console on a direct out is most likely flat up to at the very least 60K or higher, because my console a soundcraft MH-2 is 22 years old and is flat up to 60K and 3db down at 70K. But all of the UAD Unison plugins are not really emulating the hardware since the hardware had 3 times the bandwidth. So you might ask why would this matter some engineers will say (I work at 44.1K or 48K) then OK you are sort of safe when it comes to UAD. But if you work at higher it could cause you some headaches. A hardware converter and software plugin developer told me the best way to imagine this. If you have a brickwall that reaches the sky and you stand 48 feet (16 meters) away and throw a tennis ball at the wall as hard as you can where will it land? That is how far back the aliasing will be heard. Now stand at 96 feet or (32 meters) throw that same ball, it might not even hit the wall at all. The harder you hit the brickwall the further the tennis ball will bounce back in your direction. Anti-aliasing filters work the same way. But if you can get far enough away to not hit the wall the less aliasing will be heard in the hearing range of 0-20K. Dan Lavry of (lavry engineering fame) has a white paper saying that a 64K sampling rate would be optimal but computer math doesn't give us this option just 88,2 and 96K Just because you can't hear above 20K doesn't mean we should introduce hard filtering to distort, clash, and frequency mask what frequencies we can hear. Rupert Neve who everyone respects use to laugh at people who said that anything above 20K was important until he heard what a problem at 50K caused in the Air Montserrat console and after that Rupert designed his gear to be flat up to 100K. The rupert neve designs channel has a dedicated video on wide bandwidth called (Design: Wide Bandwidth). So if Rupert thinks its a good idea who is the top analog designer ever, and Dan Lavry thinks its a good idea since he is the greatest audio converter designer in many people's eyes, and I can hear the inherent problems with the UAD filters then it might be something UAD should look into fixing or at least address the problem. They could easily just put a toggle to turn it off. I'm not a UAD hater I own their hardware and software. This is just my observation as a customer and a engineer with 27 years making records as my daily job. Just give me a button to turn it off. The cymbals in your video are a direct result of the hard capped filter in my opinion. Great video by the way. I apologies for the long explanation it could seem like a rant but its not meant to be I think everyone should know and if they are fine with it then great because in the end great songs matter more than broken gear. Cheers!
I've noticed that issue too. When I record my vocal through the console with the LA2A - 48K sounds way better than 96K. I was thinking that is some latency problem or something. I've noticed something like phase issues and like you said the sound was duller. Once I've watched an interview with pro sound guy of the stars, and he said that UA plugins where sounding not that great at 96K. You are the second person I found on YT talking about that. Thanks for sharing your observation and investigation :-)
Awesome post , Joe ! You really know your stuff ! 😜👍. I use 96k because I heard that the plugins sounded better ....WTF ? 😜 So ...do you still record at 96k ?
@@joesalyers I wanted to ask, if you're recording at 96k, are you still using the Apollo or any Unison preamps? I imagine you to be using hardware pres on the way in, but was curious if you would use 96k with unison or if you would drop to 48k in that situation? I am recording at 44.1, but I've never experimented with bumping it up.
The hardware definitely sounds more mellowed, like there is a bass boost and/or high end roll off. The bass guitar sound WAY louder in the hardware mix. I wonder also if the hardware has more saturation resulting in more controlled peaks?
Yeah i generally think the analog hardware does a lot to tame peaks on a track whilst plugins seem to let things slip past sometimes. All the physical components in the hardware signal path do a lot to tame that stuff.
very good video ive always searched for the difference between them and finally found the one that really helped me to hear the difference , thank you so much for the efforts and the work
Honestly, more noticeable than I expected. Definitely would add up depending on the amount of LA's you'd have on tracks. Also I assume it would be because hardware is impossible to emulate 100%, its close sure but some parts just can't be replicated... yet
Yeah I think especially with compression, the software just isn't there yet. When you think about it, a compressor like the LA-2A is doing so much more than just dynamics control, so it makes sense.
18:06 I think this has to do with the nature of software and processing power. It's simply not possible to have a near instant attack in software, as that would necessitate near infinite processing power as I understand it. I know a few guys who happily work all in the box, but use hardware for most of the compression, as that behavior seems to be technically impossible to emulate 100% accurately with how plugins are implemented in DAWs.
Yeah you're 100%. I saw a video where a dude claimed exactly that and he got slammed for it, but honestly how can a plugin capsule electron flow, the magnetic flux of a transformer, and then my biggest one, how all this works from hardware to hardware VS. plugin to plugin. Running hardware from one into another does a thing. Plugins at this point in time could never do that, how could they.
Personally I've always felt that software compression is not there. EQ can be passable. The problem with software compressors is that they can actually do damage to the audio. With hardware compressors, it might not be the best setting, but it's typically not going actually damage the audio. Software compressors can absolutely destroy the audio.
Yeah I get what you mean. I feel like sometimes plugins lose detail and/or create harshness in certain frequencies. I also agree that I hear the biggest difference in hardware vs software compression.
@@MrSkyTown it just moves the audio around in a very non-pleasing non-musical way in my opinion. I only learned this after owning various hardware compressors. Hardware compression is very forgiving. It's hard to go wrong.
Something to keep in mind is that the free LA-2A they gave away is NOT based on the most recent version of the hardware. It's the Gray algorithm not the Silver algorithm. The Silver version is the emulation of the most recent hardware. So Silver = a typical vintage LA-2A. Gray is based on an older version of the LA-2A. It's also in the company's best interest to not make a direct 1:1 copy of the hardware lol. Why bother buying hardware if a plugin can do the same thing for a fraction of the cost. Plus I just don't think the technology is there yet. Especially with component modeling. Sampling comes pretty close sometimes. A lot of the Acustica Audio plugins are really doing a good job at getting very close to the sound of the hardware. Particularly the EQ's but even some of the newer compressors. The new Hyper 2 tech is very good. The new compressor they just released, Opal is a real head-turner. The compression sounds so natural it's really cool to hear!
Awesome analysis. To me the h/w is equivalent to vinyl. And the plug in reminds me of over-compressed mp3 sound. A digital copy of the real Thing can never replace the real. I use loads of UA plug ins and love them but feel ultimately they compromise pure tone.
Yeah you're 100%. There's definitely something majorly different that is very obvious, but hey, we all use the plugins too where necessary! Thanks for the comment!
Did everyone forget that they have 3 other LA2A's ? You should have also compared their silver and grey ones because i'm certain they sound better than the free one...
I see what you’re saying. I could have however this should really be a one to one comparison. It’s the UAD plugin of the same UAD la2a hardware model, if you get what I mean.
This is true in the case of Analog vs hardware But….Live Analog sampled plugins in a DAW sound Identical to the Analog especially if mixed into the whole mix correctly I know a lot of hardware owners don’t wanna hear this I’ve got analog gear myself But Nebula really evens the playing field
I tell you, whos got the best Vocal LA2A....is the slate digital FG2A.....that on vocals....is probably the lushest, smoothest, warmest comp to put on vocals in my opinion
Yes I hear difference in loudness and tone. Could you just bounce the plugin tracks and then normalize corresponding tracks of hardware and software to the same peaks with Wavelab or similar wave editor? I guess there must be a difference in peak level. And then you could measure maybe the loudness of the tracks with average K12 metering, a bx_dynamic range meter or whatever you think would be appropriate. I asume this is just not the same. And to go further: I bet another piece of hardware LA-2A will sound also different than both samples you have even. ;-) BUT in fact this was a great video from you!!! You really did a good job in presenting those diferrences.
The hardware does so many little things I don’t think you can get from plugins. The saturation, the way it really compresses, the way it softens anything harsh. Plugins always sound harsher, fall apart if you push em too hard and just lose detail like reverb tails and subtle stuff that people don’t notice until they listen very closely.
The people that typically bash the hardware are the ones that can’t afford the real stuff. Most of those people are also working out of home studios or their bedroom and they are doing EDM or rap where good sound doesn’t actually matter.
Definitely a big difference! I think there's not an absolute winner in this one. It depends on what are you trying to achieve. If you want a compressor that make things smoother and maybe impart some analog character to the source, then the hardware is the winner. But there might be situations where the plug in is more appropriate. I think the lesson of this video is to remind ourselves to always use our ears. Not just throw a plug-in in a track just because it's supposed to behave in a certain way. Now, how to get that analog sound if I don't own hardware gear then? Maybe an idea for another video!
I think you have 100% nailed it here. Right tool for the right job. In regards to how do we get that analogue sound, with plugins, with compression i think it's a very tricky one. Compressors are doing so much to the signal beyond just dynamics control. They change the harmonics, they change the ADSR envelope. It's probably using a combo of those things though. Transient design, saturation, soothe plugin for the harshness? I'll have to have a think on this one. A great idea for a vid indeed.
idk how i really feel on this to be honest, I mean i have used LA-2A hardware unit in the past and i remember each one sounding very different. Its possible it was modeled after a unit that sounded very different than the one you were using. Hardware is such a strange thing to me. I feel like certain units started to sound different unit to unit. then other compressors sound the same no matter which one you buy. I don't like the UA compressor in this clip in comparison to your hardware unit. I wish these companies would give us their A/B of the unit they were trying to capture and then we could really judge the emulation they were trying to achieve
The Resonense of the Hardware Creates a more open fuller sound which "Sounds Louder" because you can hear, more Low Mid Fullness Which doesent meant, the hardware is helping the Crashes sit in the mix "Better" I think using Nebula...is better than both because with the nebula "Opto 32" you get the Tighness of Digital but you still get it more rounded and warmer from the hardware, at t he same time...I been using Nebula Plugins...with my analog gear......I think thats smarter than going out and gettting all these "serperate" pieces of pricey High End Gear......
It will never sound the same because hardware goes through analog mic pre at least! AD/DA conversation also takes place. Comparing only a plugin with hardware plus another hardware does not make much sense...
I totally understand what you’re saying here, but the effect of reconverting a single sound source makes little difference once it has already been converted to digital. There are heaps of examples of this to prove it. Also, by using hardware, you have to print it back in so reconverting the signal is part of that sound anyway. That’s I how I see it. None of the hardware tracks are touching any mic pres on the way out or back in to conversion. Straight out of the converters into the hardware and back in. Nothing else is in the signal path. Just so you understand exactly what I did here. It isn’t supposed to be scientific. It’s supposed to show a real workflow that we hybrid engineers use and what the real difference is.
I hear absolutely zero difference, other than maybe in the volume. It would be absolutely mad to buy the expensive hardware while only some highly trained people with 20+ year experience can hear a difference.
I think there is a very audible difference here, and that maybe you're being a bit disingenuous with your comment. However, take a good listen to the cymbals, the high frequencies and how they are different in each. Have a listen to the snare and the completely different attack and frequency response of each. Even the vocals sound completely different in isolation let alone the whole mix together. Maybe take another closer listen.
@@diyrecordingstudio The only way you win with full analog gear opposed to using Nebula, affordable analog gear and acustica audio...is if.... You can afford to have an Original Tube Tech Comp LA2A and 1176, and a Better Macker Limiter with a API 550 EQ and a Complex Comp with someing like a Trident Mixer With a Neve 88 M Interface Focal Monitors U47 neuman mic and the best Cables Now your looking at $55,000 when.....ive matched all that in my $7000 Studio with Nebula and Acustica and affordable analog gear...and Im getting the same Quality Bro....80% of this is Mixing and Mastering Skills....only 20% is what your using, if your good at Engineerig its about 20 diffrent ways to get Quality Radio Ready Mixes
Nah listen properly the hardware is more warm and pleasing than the plugin. It also sounds more round and sitting better. The volume difference is what plugins hasn’t been able to accomplish just yet. I worked in studios with both and trust me the hardware is nice. I like the audioscape 2a which I think is worth the price over the Teleteonix. Great vid again, thank you
Get a cheap reference headphone like dt770s and you'll start hearing the difference. But honestly speaking, analog hardware is only sensible for recording studios, so that the vocalist can hear his/her own processed voice without delay. Although offline compression is arguably better than baked in, professional vocalists usually use parallel chain compression so that the original vocals recorded are unprocessed. The point of using an analog compressor is to tailor its settings to that particular vocalist, for example the late Chester from linkin park, to be able to hear how he sounds like when he's scream at the top of his lungs without destroying his ears, and still be able to hear what he sounds like when he's whispering into the same mic. TL;DR Hardware analog is a must for recording studios, but is pointless for post mixing/mastering.
Im not hearing...a "Go Spend $4000 with UAD Diffrence" more than likely Warm Audio WA2A probably sounds better than the UAD plugin and the Hardware......Warm Audio....just has a newer...sit in the mix better vibe to it.........Ive got their G Comp
![How To ACTUALLY Use LA2A and 1176 On Vocals [FREE LA2A Inside]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ze3Ct2Jk1DA/mqdefault.jpg)
Love Allen Stone! No mistaking that voice.
nailed it. Love him and this song!
Same here. That was a pleasant surprise.
You might find this interesting. I have a couple of theories and answers as to why its so drastic. What sample rate are you working at? Because if you look at the way Universal Audio changed their oversampling scheme when they started building plugins back around 2009 with the Fatso Jr/Sr its not good before this it was different. The free LA2Tube compressor has this filter. I record mostly folk/bluegrass music and acoustic instruments so and I owned 2 Apollo 16s with a console and a Apollo Twin with a Satellite for an editing rig the conversion is good. But I mostly work at 96K because our clients ask for it. This might be a long post but informative if you want to know more about UAD plugins.
So one day I had to do an in the box mix for a client and I started using the UAD plugins across my mix, I noticed the top end was starting to sound kind of dull and weird, so I check my masterbus with Voxengo Span and to my shock everything above 24K was gone and I had a huge build up at the brickwall. I thought I had a broken satellite that was mismatching the sampling rate and I tried numerous things like moving the plugins to the Apollo, restarts, and so on but nothing changed. Then I read the UAD plugin manual and it cleared it all up they are cheating the system and use marketing speak to explain it. They even had Sound on Sound write and article to legitimize their marketing. It's called (Why do Universal Audio restrict the processing bandwith of their UAD plug-ins?) I still own their hardware and as long as you know what plugins to avoid at high sampling rates its fine.
So here is what is happening the UAD plugins are only capable of 48K internal processing no matter the sampling rate. What this means is the total bandwidth of 90% of their plugins is 0-24K up to 96K and 0 to 21,5K at 192. I use to think this was just a limitation of the 25 year old DSP SHARC chips they used on the Apollo and Satellite devices. But when they went native versions came out I was shocked that they still had this blatant problem. I've talked to other developers about this and they have told me numerous problems could arise from this not just the obvious Aliasing caused by a mismatched anti-aliasing filter at the wrong frequency. This is also why the reported plugin latency is not linear multiples across sampling rates and varies wildly depending on your session's sampling rate. So when UAD started doing this in 2009, 44,1K was still the majority sampling rate for DAW sessions but when the Movie industry moved to 48K no one noticed but around 2014 when video games, TV shows and movies companies started asking for 96K people started to notice and then the marketing spin started. If you look at the back of the UAD plugin manual under the chapter market "UAD and high definition audio" they smear the lines between truth and marketing, but they at least give a list of the plugins that include this mismatched anti-aliasing filter.
Basically the conclusion other plugin developers told me is basically if you work at sampling rates above 48K you should test the UAD plugins to see if they include these filters because they can cause major phase coherency issues especially if you use the wet/dry mix option and even UAD say not to use the mix knob on your masterbus (which is what made me suspicious) So this antialiasing filter is a major problem and can cause the UAD plugins to sound different making transients harsher as well as causing frequency masking in the top end which can dull or brighten the material depending on how it hits the mismatched filtering. Its just plain silly that UAD use this for their native plugins without the option to turn it off. No one else does this and even other companies on the UAD DSP platform don't have this issue (only UAD themselves) Softube, Brainworx, and Sonnox don't do this and their plugins are exactly the same on DSP as native and perform to spec. Nowhere on earth will you find a API mic preamp or channelstrip that cuts off hard at 24K like the UAD plugin. Your Allen & Heath console on a direct out is most likely flat up to at the very least 60K or higher, because my console a soundcraft MH-2 is 22 years old and is flat up to 60K and 3db down at 70K. But all of the UAD Unison plugins are not really emulating the hardware since the hardware had 3 times the bandwidth.
So you might ask why would this matter some engineers will say (I work at 44.1K or 48K) then OK you are sort of safe when it comes to UAD. But if you work at higher it could cause you some headaches. A hardware converter and software plugin developer told me the best way to imagine this. If you have a brickwall that reaches the sky and you stand 48 feet (16 meters) away and throw a tennis ball at the wall as hard as you can where will it land? That is how far back the aliasing will be heard. Now stand at 96 feet or (32 meters) throw that same ball, it might not even hit the wall at all. The harder you hit the brickwall the further the tennis ball will bounce back in your direction. Anti-aliasing filters work the same way. But if you can get far enough away to not hit the wall the less aliasing will be heard in the hearing range of 0-20K. Dan Lavry of (lavry engineering fame) has a white paper saying that a 64K sampling rate would be optimal but computer math doesn't give us this option just 88,2 and 96K Just because you can't hear above 20K doesn't mean we should introduce hard filtering to distort, clash, and frequency mask what frequencies we can hear. Rupert Neve who everyone respects use to laugh at people who said that anything above 20K was important until he heard what a problem at 50K caused in the Air Montserrat console and after that Rupert designed his gear to be flat up to 100K. The rupert neve designs channel has a dedicated video on wide bandwidth called (Design: Wide Bandwidth). So if Rupert thinks its a good idea who is the top analog designer ever, and Dan Lavry thinks its a good idea since he is the greatest audio converter designer in many people's eyes, and I can hear the inherent problems with the UAD filters then it might be something UAD should look into fixing or at least address the problem. They could easily just put a toggle to turn it off. I'm not a UAD hater I own their hardware and software. This is just my observation as a customer and a engineer with 27 years making records as my daily job. Just give me a button to turn it off. The cymbals in your video are a direct result of the hard capped filter in my opinion.
Great video by the way. I apologies for the long explanation it could seem like a rant but its not meant to be I think everyone should know and if they are fine with it then great because in the end great songs matter more than broken gear. Cheers!
I've noticed that issue too. When I record my vocal through the console with the LA2A - 48K sounds way better than 96K. I was thinking that is some latency problem or something. I've noticed something like phase issues and like you said the sound was duller. Once I've watched an interview with pro sound guy of the stars, and he said that UA plugins where sounding not that great at 96K. You are the second person I found on YT talking about that. Thanks for sharing your observation and investigation :-)
Awesome post , Joe ! You really know your stuff ! 😜👍. I use 96k because I heard that the plugins sounded better ....WTF ? 😜
So ...do you still record at 96k ?
@@LukeSchneiderEWI Yes I do, 96k is the best option for me. Cheers!
This was such a great post! Thanks - I learned a lot!!
@@joesalyers I wanted to ask, if you're recording at 96k, are you still using the Apollo or any Unison preamps? I imagine you to be using hardware pres on the way in, but was curious if you would use 96k with unison or if you would drop to 48k in that situation? I am recording at 44.1, but I've never experimented with bumping it up.
The hardware definitely sounds more mellowed, like there is a bass boost and/or high end roll off. The bass guitar sound WAY louder in the hardware mix.
I wonder also if the hardware has more saturation resulting in more controlled peaks?
Yeah i generally think the analog hardware does a lot to tame peaks on a track whilst plugins seem to let things slip past sometimes. All the physical components in the hardware signal path do a lot to tame that stuff.
very good video ive always searched for the difference between them and finally found the one that really helped me to hear the difference , thank you so much for the efforts and the work
Not a problem. Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment!
Honestly, more noticeable than I expected. Definitely would add up depending on the amount of LA's you'd have on tracks. Also I assume it would be because hardware is impossible to emulate 100%, its close sure but some parts just can't be replicated... yet
Yeah I think especially with compression, the software just isn't there yet. When you think about it, a compressor like the LA-2A is doing so much more than just dynamics control, so it makes sense.
18:06 I think this has to do with the nature of software and processing power.
It's simply not possible to have a near instant attack in software, as that would necessitate near infinite processing power as I understand it.
I know a few guys who happily work all in the box, but use hardware for most of the compression, as that behavior seems to be technically impossible to emulate 100% accurately with how plugins are implemented in DAWs.
Yeah you're 100%. I saw a video where a dude claimed exactly that and he got slammed for it, but honestly how can a plugin capsule electron flow, the magnetic flux of a transformer, and then my biggest one, how all this works from hardware to hardware VS. plugin to plugin.
Running hardware from one into another does a thing. Plugins at this point in time could never do that, how could they.
Hey. Do you have any literature about what you said here? Anywhere I can read about it? @josuastangl7140
From the beginning hardware sounds more deep in a low and smoother widespread, plugins make cymbals higher in pitch.
Yeah I'm definitely hearing smoother hi freq in the hardware a bigger and tighter low end for sure.
Personally I've always felt that software compression is not there. EQ can be passable. The problem with software compressors is that they can actually do damage to the audio. With hardware compressors, it might not be the best setting, but it's typically not going actually damage the audio. Software compressors can absolutely destroy the audio.
Damage the Audio in what way
Yeah I get what you mean. I feel like sometimes plugins lose detail and/or create harshness in certain frequencies. I also agree that I hear the biggest difference in hardware vs software compression.
@@MrSkyTown it just moves the audio around in a very non-pleasing non-musical way in my opinion. I only learned this after owning various hardware compressors. Hardware compression is very forgiving. It's hard to go wrong.
@@diyrecordingstudiohave you tried acoustica audio plugins, especially their Tan2 plugin.
I haven’t. Some people are recommending nebula from them. What can you tell me about tan2?
Something to keep in mind is that the free LA-2A they gave away is NOT based on the most recent version of the hardware. It's the Gray algorithm not the Silver algorithm. The Silver version is the emulation of the most recent hardware. So Silver = a typical vintage LA-2A. Gray is based on an older version of the LA-2A. It's also in the company's best interest to not make a direct 1:1 copy of the hardware lol. Why bother buying hardware if a plugin can do the same thing for a fraction of the cost. Plus I just don't think the technology is there yet. Especially with component modeling. Sampling comes pretty close sometimes. A lot of the Acustica Audio plugins are really doing a good job at getting very close to the sound of the hardware. Particularly the EQ's but even some of the newer compressors. The new Hyper 2 tech is very good. The new compressor they just released, Opal is a real head-turner. The compression sounds so natural it's really cool to hear!
Far more noticeable than I realized. Thank you.
Not a problem. Glad you enjoyed it.
Wow, what an unbelivably valuable and impressive video. Thanks for this content
Thanks for the awesome comment. Glad I could help!
The video starts somewhere at 7:00.
Awesome analysis. To me the h/w is equivalent to vinyl. And the plug in reminds me of over-compressed mp3 sound. A digital copy of the real
Thing can never replace the real. I use loads of UA plug ins and love them but feel ultimately they compromise pure tone.
Yeah you're 100%. There's definitely something majorly different that is very obvious, but hey, we all use the plugins too where necessary!
Thanks for the comment!
Did everyone forget that they have 3 other LA2A's ? You should have also compared their silver and grey ones because i'm certain they sound better than the free one...
I see what you’re saying. I could have however this should really be a one to one comparison. It’s the UAD plugin of the same UAD la2a hardware model, if you get what I mean.
Love my real la2a. I don’t even us the plugins anymore. Also have a audioscape opto comp and a one la 500 series. Prefer all over the plugins easily
This is true in the case of Analog vs hardware
But….Live Analog sampled plugins in a DAW sound Identical to the Analog especially if mixed into the whole mix correctly
I know a lot of hardware owners don’t wanna hear this
I’ve got analog gear myself
But Nebula really evens the playing field
You’re the second person to reference nebula. I’ll have to check it out. You have a link to their stuff?
Hiw do people do not hear the difference is beyond my understanding 😅
Yeah, I definitely hear differences between hardware and software always. Right tool for the right job though I guess. Thanks for leaving a comment!
I agree. People just listening on their phones should be banned from having an opinion.
Hahahahha!
honestly sometimes you can hear the difference on phones too if you know what to listen for.
Great Video, though...really cool hearing the "Original Unit" in action
the funny thing is that UAD can't make their 2a plugin better than these other companies emulating THEIR hardware. Thats CRAZY to me ( in my opinion )
I tell you, whos got the best Vocal LA2A....is the slate digital FG2A.....that on vocals....is probably the lushest, smoothest, warmest comp to put on vocals in my opinion
Yes I hear difference in loudness and tone. Could you just bounce the plugin tracks and then normalize corresponding tracks of hardware and software to the same peaks with Wavelab or similar wave editor? I guess there must be a difference in peak level. And then you could measure maybe the loudness of the tracks with average K12 metering, a bx_dynamic range meter or whatever you think would be appropriate. I asume this is just not the same. And to go further: I bet another piece of hardware LA-2A will sound also different than both samples you have even. ;-)
BUT in fact this was a great video from you!!! You really did a good job in presenting those diferrences.
The hardware does so many little things I don’t think you can get from plugins. The saturation, the way it really compresses, the way it softens anything harsh.
Plugins always sound harsher, fall apart if you push em too hard and just lose detail like reverb tails and subtle stuff that people don’t notice until they listen very closely.
The Difference Is So clear.
Good work. I agree with you 💯! And better sensitivity makes personal problems 😅. Def people always happy 😢
I will like to hear the ola vs the both of them.
I’ll have a vid on this and the newly acquired igs one la as well.
@@diyrecordingstudio can’t wait keep up the good work.
The people that typically bash the hardware are the ones that can’t afford the real stuff. Most of those people are also working out of home studios or their bedroom and they are doing EDM or rap where good sound doesn’t actually matter.
Definitely a big difference! I think there's not an absolute winner in this one. It depends on what are you trying to achieve. If you want a compressor that make things smoother and maybe impart some analog character to the source, then the hardware is the winner. But there might be situations where the plug in is more appropriate. I think the lesson of this video is to remind ourselves to always use our ears. Not just throw a plug-in in a track just because it's supposed to behave in a certain way. Now, how to get that analog sound if I don't own hardware gear then? Maybe an idea for another video!
I think you have 100% nailed it here. Right tool for the right job.
In regards to how do we get that analogue sound, with plugins, with compression i think it's a very tricky one. Compressors are doing so much to the signal beyond just dynamics control. They change the harmonics, they change the ADSR envelope. It's probably using a combo of those things though. Transient design, saturation, soothe plugin for the harshness?
I'll have to have a think on this one. A great idea for a vid indeed.
idk how i really feel on this to be honest, I mean i have used LA-2A hardware unit in the past and i remember each one sounding very different. Its possible it was modeled after a unit that sounded very different than the one you were using. Hardware is such a strange thing to me. I feel like certain units started to sound different unit to unit. then other compressors sound the same no matter which one you buy.
I don't like the UA compressor in this clip in comparison to your hardware unit. I wish these companies would give us their A/B of the unit they were trying to capture and then we could really judge the emulation they were trying to achieve
hardware foreverrrr baby
The Resonense of the Hardware Creates a more open fuller sound which "Sounds Louder" because you can hear, more Low Mid Fullness
Which doesent meant, the hardware is helping the Crashes sit in the mix "Better"
I think using Nebula...is better than both because with the nebula "Opto 32" you get the Tighness of Digital but you still get it more rounded and warmer from the hardware, at t he same time...I been using Nebula Plugins...with my analog gear......I think thats smarter than going out and gettting all these "serperate" pieces of pricey High End Gear......
clear difference in the cymbal but i feel there is some kind of work around, there has to be, i didnt just get 1 year of spark to watch this video :(
It will never sound the same because hardware goes through analog mic pre at least! AD/DA conversation also takes place. Comparing only a plugin with hardware plus another hardware does not make much sense...
I totally understand what you’re saying here, but the effect of reconverting a single sound source makes little difference once it has already been converted to digital. There are heaps of examples of this to prove it.
Also, by using hardware, you have to print it back in so reconverting the signal is part of that sound anyway. That’s I how I see it.
None of the hardware tracks are touching any mic pres on the way out or back in to conversion. Straight out of the converters into the hardware and back in. Nothing else is in the signal path.
Just so you understand exactly what I did here.
It isn’t supposed to be scientific. It’s supposed to show a real workflow that we hybrid engineers use and what the real difference is.
UAD plug is digital not ANALOG.
There that concludes the lesson for today.
It based on science not subjectivity.
It always amuses me when see digital analog inspired plugs been compared to the actual hardware as they are completely different technologies.
I hear absolutely zero difference, other than maybe in the volume. It would be absolutely mad to buy the expensive hardware while only some highly trained people with 20+ year experience can hear a difference.
Man...they do almost sound Identical...definately not enough difference to go spend......$4000....LMAO
I think there is a very audible difference here, and that maybe you're being a bit disingenuous with your comment. However, take a good listen to the cymbals, the high frequencies and how they are different in each. Have a listen to the snare and the completely different attack and frequency response of each. Even the vocals sound completely different in isolation let alone the whole mix together.
Maybe take another closer listen.
@@diyrecordingstudio
The only way you win with full analog gear opposed to using Nebula, affordable analog gear and acustica audio...is if....
You can afford
to have an Original
Tube Tech Comp
LA2A and 1176, and a Better Macker Limiter with a API 550 EQ
and a Complex Comp
with someing like a Trident Mixer
With a Neve 88 M Interface
Focal Monitors
U47 neuman mic and the best Cables
Now your looking at
$55,000
when.....ive matched all that in my $7000 Studio with Nebula and Acustica and affordable analog gear...and Im getting the same Quality Bro....80% of this is Mixing and Mastering Skills....only 20% is what your using, if your good at Engineerig its about 20 diffrent ways to get Quality Radio Ready Mixes
Nah listen properly the hardware is more warm and pleasing than the plugin. It also sounds more round and sitting better. The volume difference is what plugins hasn’t been able to accomplish just yet. I worked in studios with both and trust me the hardware is nice. I like the audioscape 2a which I think is worth the price over the Teleteonix. Great vid again, thank you
Get a cheap reference headphone like dt770s and you'll start hearing the difference. But honestly speaking, analog hardware is only sensible for recording studios, so that the vocalist can hear his/her own processed voice without delay. Although offline compression is arguably better than baked in, professional vocalists usually use parallel chain compression so that the original vocals recorded are unprocessed. The point of using an analog compressor is to tailor its settings to that particular vocalist, for example the late Chester from linkin park, to be able to hear how he sounds like when he's scream at the top of his lungs without destroying his ears, and still be able to hear what he sounds like when he's whispering into the same mic. TL;DR Hardware analog is a must for recording studios, but is pointless for post mixing/mastering.
Im not hearing...a "Go Spend $4000 with UAD Diffrence" more than likely Warm Audio WA2A probably sounds better than the UAD plugin and the Hardware......Warm Audio....just has a newer...sit in the mix better vibe to it.........Ive got their G Comp
Bla bla bla, bla bla bla, dislike, dude.