Since I have no experience with the hardware, I just turn the knobs on Acustica plugins until they sound fantastic. Yes, they have replaced many, many, many of my other plugins!
To my guys on here that use windows , your best bet is to use a gaming computer for your studio , no matter what plugins i use i dont have cpu issues , just my suggestion . ( i use an i7 intel with reason 11)
@@FoliaSound great choice, I was just giving a tip to those that are on here stating cpu issues with various plugins . I dont like mac at all ,Ive been through alot of computers and I have to say a gaming computer was the best choice I ever made . reason is a very cpu taxing program , but now i can run high track count projects with plugins no sweat , the highest track count ive mixed is 70-80 and i barely hit 50% cpu usage
@@MrFelonyLoc I just mixed 226 on my 2010 Mac Pro 12 core. I just barely got by. If even those new intro computers 12 years later can’t tackle 70-80 tracks, I’m not excited for when my computer dies. The worst is hitting the wall at 90% finished. The. Worst. lol. Cheers!
Very honest and demonstrable opinion. Yes, your eyes will hurt having to look into a magenta colored plugin, every designer worth his salt, knows clarity of image and type makes life better for the user, but how often do we see type without serifs so thin on colored backgrounds that make reading it, near impossible, it happens a lot.
When you said u bought used software licenses on knob cloud. For a moment I was lost in befuddlement. Shortly thereafter, you found a very special place in my heart. May God bless you my friend 😌🙏🏼♥️
Hi, finally a great comparison! Just a curiosity: are you working at 96000? because to really feel AA plugin work well, they recommend working at 96000
Guys, I just shared source 96 kHz 24 bit files with final results of my tests:https: //www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/3d0yd71462ehw6go570at/h?dl=0&rlkey=so82488a4us8a8tr781q77ewf
@@FoliaSound UA-cam hasn't used AAC for a while now broski. They are using OPUS which is an incredibly transparent lossy codec by the same guys that made FLAC. When you rip audio from UA-cam you will get a .webm file which is a container format, but the codec will always be A_OPUS. From what I've gathered so far they seem to be converting to 48.0 kHz resolution with a 16 bit depth, to save bits on streaming. But I have not fully tested this with enough music videos / audio streams yet. So take that bit with a grain of salt. In UA-cam's own help docs they recommend that we use FLAC or Linear PCM (wave) with a recommended sample rate of 44.1kHz. "Higher sample rates are accepted but not required (for example, 48kHz or 96kHz). 24-bit recommended, 16-bit acceptable." So it is possible to upload a 96kHz audio stream, the question is what will they do with it on the way out. They are also doing their own proprietary normalization on the back end. So without a doubt there is a lot of conversion and loudness normalization happening. If possible, try to embed lossless formats in the video's audio stream, with highest resolution and bit depth settings as this will ensure the best possible playback of audio on the videos streamed on UA-cam and their own transcoded conversion process. Nice video by the way! Cheers😎👍
I owned UAD for 14 years. I sold everything for this reason. Uad always have that same sonic signature. Muted and Smeary. Acustica Purple has such a better sound. Better transients, Stereo spread, saturation. UAD Manley Massive Passive it a total sham. Always grainy and dirty. Not even close to the real thing. Thanks for this Video. Try 3rd party Nebula Libs. Thats were the real gold is! Tim Petheric, Cupwise, AlexB, AITB, ect....All these are very cpu light
That's simply not true. I had the original Massive Passive for many years and neither me nor any other persons could hear any difference between the UAD version and the original. There was just a slight difference in the bass. UAD is reaaaally close.
I like AA sound, can't complain in that matter. But after years and years of constant issues in Cubase + lag + CPU usage (it's overkill in big sessions) makes me sell all of them. I managed to avoid UAD for years, but I could replace all AA with other plugins. I don't miss them. The amount of headaches caused by problems with stability issues can't compensate for sound quality. The attitude of their representative on GS only helped me in my decision of removing AA from my sessions for good ;)
When you have said about "analog highs" on Manley's emulations I recall that this is UA-cam video which compressed... nah.. Love Pulsar Audio emulation tho )
I much preferred the Acustica Pultec: nicer low end and I agree with the comments about the depth and 3D sound compared to the UAD. But the Acustica Manley sounded weak and somewhat flat and veiled. The UAD version has much more life, and of course the GUI is more eye-friendly.
Acustica's GUIs should be a topic for serious academic study ;) I got used to them, but I'm not a fan until today, yet soundwise - usually nothing sounds better in virtual world...
Great review, really enjoyed your in-depth analysis of them. I've never owned UA plugins, but have some AA and really like them from the aspect of they have great sales and if you purchase from their website (something I didn't do to begin with, purchasing only on second hand license) you get a lifetime discount voucher level the more you get the higher the discount and lifetime updates, so buying them once and never having to worry about it as they continually update their plugins (something that did my head in with some other brands, each time the updated, they made me pay again and again and again)... The sound of AA I find very nice, but saying this I did a test from the likes of Access Analog and a few others and then compared their sounds with the same model Waves, AA and others and had a similar effect that you got in your tests, in that if you use each brands model plugin and set them exactly the same they will indeed sound different, what was disheartening to me with ALL the brands that once you tweak each different brand you can get them just about all sounding exactly the same including our beloved Waves plugins and I even tried this with AA Purple and a free pultec emulation from Kiive Audio called the Warmy EP1A Pultec which is free and I got exactly the same sound after tweaking it and the AA version, so I think it's not so much about what these emulations model so much it's about just tweaking them to their varied setups and how they've been programmed... But with the hardware versions of each, I couldn't quite achieve the same magic with any of them as hardware units are so variable and perhaps this is why you're getting the variance with AA and UA versions, AA models hardware and UA you mentioned was more digital and there are discrepancies, I actually really loved the sound of your UA plugins in this test very nice indeed... I love watching these tests but as for the above mentioned I stopped testing them side by side long ago as I know without spending a fortune on the hardware itself, I'll never achieve that additional 1-3% extra magic from the hardware, so AA seems to do it for me at present mixed with some other more digital sounding plugins. I like using AA after the digital work is done and taken out any unsavory sounds from my tracks and then just print the AA into each track if I'm using a lot of them like hardware, it forces me to get used to the software I have and not keep getting new stuff all the time (albeit that doesn't work at all, I still have G.A.S) LOL!
hmm even on my macbook speakers i can hear how the AA ist more stiff and open in the lower register, is more 3D overall and the transient response is very analogish. I think on EQs AA is the one to beat atm. You should try Azure2 it just feels so real its just unreal
I also hear UAD being quite flat and less deep than AA. It's subtle for sure but there's just something more natural about it. It's closer to Analog qualities that I'm familiar with. Openness, depth, space. You can really hear in the bass too how UAD gets a bit flat and thin comparatively. Most people won't know the diff though.
yes exactly! and UAD even masks the events after the loud ones! At least Softube got that right compared to most other algo-plugs. To me theres no reason to use any other (coloring) EQ plugs than Acustica Audio at mixdown stage.
Acustica's sound is more punchy and clear. Better instrument separation and sound stage. It really sounds more analog. In a mastering situation this means a lot.
Hey, guys, FIY: I did all my test on 96 kHz 24-bit (though there's 48 kHz info on the screen - I did all the listening tests in 96 kHz, but my OBS didn't want to record 96 kHz, I suppose that my RME card needs servicing, it causes trouble when working on multiple apps over 48 kHz). Grab final 96 kHz 24 bit files from my tests here: www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/3d0yd71462ehw6go570at/h?dl=0&rlkey=so82488a4us8a8tr781q77ewf What do you think about Acustica Audio tools? Are you using them? Planning to do so? Quit? Let me know in the comments!
Acustica is going for QUANTITY over quality. ALL of their plugins I mean ALL are bugged / causing delay, stop playing anytime, when change the preset. They do perfectly well - youtube videos, excellent looking GUI, etc. except the optimizing plugins for using them. I mean who could use more instances of their plugins on mixing? I have massive CPU but it already have enough, maybe on mastering, but all those glitches that it causes, I mean no thanks.. they look BEAUTIFUL, though if nobody have glitches, then I wonder why I got them since I use Windows 10 and have fast and optimized PC.
Hey! I think that Neve will always be Neve, BUT I recently got an interesting hardware: Camden EC-1 by Cranborne Audio. One of its saturation settings reminds me of 1073, same character definitely. I don't need a Neve now, because EC-1 is a beast itself...
The plugins seem great. I was dying to get an RCA BA-6A emulation. The customer service and compatibility and optimization is what is bad. Also the inability to have a clear and concise statement about what works with pro tools/operating systems/CPU architecture/etc is pretty frustrating.
Acustica Audio's problem is they can't even get their plugins to work in M1 or even Rosetta 2 yet on Monterey (M1 Ultra users are screwed). Use many plugs? They only use one core (of 24). And being heavy CPU intensive plugins, you can't use any more than three on a master channel in a 96khz session. AA refuse to update or respond to customer support in any coherent way. PC master race? Now they are discounting their expensive plugins like Waves. Fall from grace. Avoid if M1 Ultra or M2 user.
I agree that the interface and the laggines of acustica, but once you get used to it they pay off with amazing sound. Also nebula 3rd party libs are so good. I didn't get on the train of UAD because I knew their dsp is outdated and expensive. I can run more acuáticas with my pc than a friend with 2 octo pcie cards, and acuáticas are heavy on CPU. Now with the spark subs model we'll see what if I try them, but still not ready for windows and M1 native.
Ryzen 9 5950X and fast RAM + SSD, no perceptible slowdown here, and I can load hundreds of instances. I think many users misunderstand the "instance on/off" buttons as being a band bypass. They're not, they load and unload vectors from memory, so they take time. They are just for the purpose of saving RAM and CPU in case you are not using that band. Not for A/B purposes.
Great video! You´re right, that it can be difficult to use AA compressors or that some people say, that many of their comps aren´t on the same level like other brands (except from Magenta & Nickel) But especially with Acusticas Nebula and N4 libraries from TimP or Cupwise you get compressors, that are not comparable to anything ITB. Although they´re using the sampling approach/tech, but with some tweaks...Using them is another world and they hold up easily to their hardware counterparts
AA presented more low end fundamental pitch to my ear. Eq is t exactly linear. I don’t expect a 2db tweak at 3k to present the same as 2db at a less audible frequency like 18 k. Nice job.
Bro remember that they are modeled off different units, no two real pultec hardware sounds the same, and as they age of the unit gets older they change the character in sound, I own both uad and acustica plugins, and the difference is night as a day for me, Acoustica plugins adds this warmth to my mix like no other, while CPU intensive, however, I have a way around that. In my opinion UAD as nothing on Accustica, only speed. Hit me up, I would like to submit and mix and master I did for a review, with only acoustic plugs and u will understand why I say to have this opinion and I would love to see if you to get a simular mix in the box with uad. I think would make for good content.
I use Acustica plugins considering them as “something analog-workflow”.. I mean, freezing tracks all the time to release CPU jajahah I dont work professionally, just to do my beats
Thanks for the comprehensive comparison. I’m not on the UAD platform but have been searching for a Manley Massive Passive emulation that is comparable to the UAD plug-in. I have been using Magenta however I recently saw advertisement for Melda MTurboEQ that includes a Massive Passive emulation as well as 10 other vintage EQ plugins in one plug-in. The gui looks much more similar to the original Manley as well as the default settings. Wondering if you had tried the Melda version and what your thoughts were. Thanks!
With analogue gear, we want the immediate response, hence being analogue. In the plugin world, we strive for that response too, so it totally defeats the purpose of having lag and a slight pause before the impulse response kicks in. I tired Acustica and found it totally broke up the flow and concept of mixing fast and not letting the plugin get in the way. Besides, UAD are still the GOAT plugins IMHO.
The thing I like about Acustica's plugins is that I have to mix more by ear. I can't just lean on the presets I made for myself, or the exact same things I always do. But if I put in the time, I think the results are better w/ Acustica--but we're talking a 5-10% difference (tops!) versus UAD. I think Acustica is under-rated. It is UAD's equal. The question is really this-- do you want to put in the time to learn Acustica's new interfaces, and quirks? Even though you already know UAD and you're happy with your sound?
Great video, i'm a Acoustica audio fan , I noticed you have a computer screen on your right side in your studio on the wall i have one also nearly in the same spot and everyone has told me to cover it because it will cause reflections, do you have issues with that ?
Hey, Tuff! Well', I got quite a lot of stuff in the studio that causes reflections :) A studio table, a coffe table, monitors. I believe taht i set them up the way that reduces all the reflections to an acceptable level. the acoustics of my room are good!
@@FoliaSound Thanks for the response appreciate it, I also have DJ equipment where your keyboards are, so I was worried not much I can do about that ,my room is treated , was thinking to hang a baffle or cover the screen when needed
07:57 bass of acustice sounds way clearer to me 14:51 ja the top end and harmonic distortion of acoustica is the best you can get in the box... but why are there so few reviews out there? THe acoustica sounds so lively compared to UAD...i am so amazed.... i put it everywhere..
AA really sound good compared to the Hardware and other Plugins. But the UI of AA Plugs is a mess and also the names of the Plugins. You never know what is what. At least the plugs are now more stable the years ago
great comparison. i just tried my first Acustica plugin, their free JET dynamic EQ. Installation was confusing, the user interface is confusing, and as you said the names of the units and the way the knobs respond is also confusing but the unit DOES sound good, has resonant lows and clean highs. PS their website and installation app are ALSO extremely confusing. It seems like their audio tech is strong but their user experience is weak.
Yep, I see it same way. I think AA tried to be somehow different, exceptional in their user experience and they actually are, but not in the best way...
Notice Unless You've got a high end i7 Ryzen 5, 6 or 7 or Fast Mac these will not work properly AA plugins are different Because thier using algorithm respones to intimate audio samples Thar makes these the best But.... the are DSP HEAVY!!
Acustica audio, are definitely, the most Hardware sounding plugins, but oh, I'm still thinking the plugin Alliance, Softube, Tone Empire and analog obession, and some Waves plugins just have a more pleasant and musical sound color to them, especially on a great mix
I think U He Presswerks Plugin Alliance SSL channels Analog Obsession S Comp, Waves H Comp, and API 2500 And Tone Empire Fairchild Sound as good as any AA Compressor
Yeah my studio is in the middle of the farm open space, very quite environment I am alone doing the shootout myself... ACUSTICA emulation sucks...I prefered KAZROG TRUE DYNAMICS COMP action and sound is like HW 99%, Analog obsession eqs and some of its free comp, Fuse audio Lab ,but ACUSTICA is better than Waves and slate
AA plugins are specially about soundstage and musicality. Every AA has a better soundstage, preamp image and musicality than ANY other brand. This happens at the expense of CPU and latency. I don't care if an eq or compressor takes 0,5 sec to load if it matches 98% of a machine I'll likely never be able to buy.
the thing is that acustica has very bad and overcomplicated interface designs (and is cpu heavy of course). but the behaviour of the plugins is just like analog stuff: weird and unpredictable, you always feel like something is broken in a good way, because it just sounds deep, full and rich.
AA all the way. Uad i sold after 1 month , its glossy and not that good or much of its plugs . Some are very nice . AA slowly is leaving the rest behind , your missing a trick if you do not try it or use it but its expensive unless you wait for the sales .
i bought loads of acustica - thought it was the best thing going - then i realised it used so much cpu and was not so good - now i dont use it - at first i thought it was the best ... now ... no
but totally understand your opinion to be just as valid as mine - check back with me after 2 years of having them ... then try out the weiss eq ... and man i think its better
Too close to worry about it IMO. Buy one and master it so you can tweak it to your will and never think about if it sounds like "the real thing" again.
I just tried all the free stuff from aa and it sound pretty awesome. The lagging and CPU usage is big, so for mastering and maybe for sound design. But it's the first time I got drop outs on my system.... But Stil sooo goood sounding.... Wrghh 🤣
Matter fact if you use the right plugins with plugin Alliance after you get through with the mix, you can literally customize that each time to make it sound like it got ran through just the right hardware for that mix
That thing you are calling "unpredictable" is band interaction, if that disturbs you that much you should stick to digital. AA has some flaws, but the openness is undeniable even in very bad speakers.
Whoah, sir/madam! I never said it.disturbs me so much, I simply pointed it out! Band interaction is albo emulated in all UAD products, I believe it's more about how all the knobs are calibrated. You've surely noticed that finally I was able to get the same curve from both Acustica and UAD. Plus: I simply learned AA curves and now they are my go tos!
Acustica is going for QUANTITY over quality. ALL of their plugins I mean ALL are bugged / causing delay, stop playing anytime, when change the preset. They do perfectly well - youtube videos, excellent looking GUI, etc. except the optimizing plugins for using them. I mean who could use more instances of their plugins on mixing? I have massive CPU but it already have enough, maybe on mastering, but all those glitches that it causes, I mean no thanks.. they look BEAUTIFUL, though if nobody have glitches, then I wonder why I got them since I use Windows 10 and have fast and optimized PC.
Well, I have to tell you that Acustica has got some best quality tools out there. Their Pultec emu or their Manley bundle are simply unbeatable, nothing like them. Also their Taupe is crazy good, same for some channel strips...
Yes, the listener doesn't have to know what you used and usually he doesn't care, but you, as a creator, should always aim at best skills and set of tools you can, because they do make difference. The listener won't even know what kind of "magic" there is in your music, but at the end of day he'll say: "this track is just ok, but this one is amazing". Same applies to every creative branch: filmmaking, photography, painting etc. Your tools are usually invisible for your audience, but they really do matter, Paul!
I got nothing about FabFilters, using them all the time, they are also quality tools! And yes your skills and talent you called "the ear" are most important, always. Still: the set of tool you're using does matter, too. The listener won't know, but he'll whisper: "wow". That's what I meant!
@@FoliaSound Burna boy won a grammy via fabfilter plugins and yes they matter but teach about the music we all know "Analogue" plugins are a scam. They all don't Null!!
Frankly not a fan of either company. Both have frustrating UI and aren’t really worth the cost or CPU load. There are tons of lightweight plugins out there that do the same thing. Plug-in doctor shows u that the magic behind Acustica and UAD is just saturation and EQ, which u can get in a myriad of flavors from 100s of developers.
Fair point, sir, but I still believe that both AA and UAD sound somehow better that some others. Can I measure it? Probably not, but I can definitely hear that!
First of all, you didn't test Plugin Doctor on hardware, so you can't claim which is better. I have both UAD and Acoustic plugin i plus hardware and they are very close, but Acoustic is much, much closer to the original hardware, much closer than UAD. Otherwise, I have been a user of UAD for years
Judging from Tonex... If done right I think the future of best analog modeling.... Could very easily be machine learning. A.I. is good for something that is NOT scary evil, at least.... Antonis could be better if they did A more serious anti-aliasing treatment... It's really impressive though!
Each plugin has slightly different curves. I prefer the Acustica version as it has a light roll off on the low end on the pultec The gain difference is different as well. The boost on UAD is almost 2 db less. The curves are not the same either The thing to look for is level matched in flat. The UAD is more low end forward and slightly darker(like an old Pulse Pultec) The acustica has a sort of vocal forward to it that I like. I also feel like the low end it more woody on the UAD but more round and smooth on the acoustica. Both are great
I know...."Everything sounds better because its UAD" BUT...honestly I use Austica Audio for mixing and mastering with analog Rack....They both sound great...but the problem is UAD are made for people "doing digital mastering" Hybrid with analog outboard gear...Aucstica smokes UAD.....!!!
Acoustica destroys uad by light years ive been using analog devices from i was training for engineering and when i use nebula with tim p alex b and tim cupwise i said holy moly im using real hardware in a pluhin format i forget about the real hardware
Acustica Audio sounds incredible. One thing a lot of people don't realise is just how important the signal level going into AA's plugins has on the sound behaviour. That first Pultec example it really jumps out how much more 3D sounding the AA version is compared to the UAD which sounds flat by comparison in terms of depth.
Exactly. There is a distinguishable difference between the two. AA is more 3D and transients are "Faster". And I am using wireless headphones and I can hearthis.
Plug in chasing ill call it...Emulations are everywhere, after all, they even create the GUI to look like the original units.. Thats the candy..... Why? Thats why I respect Colin McDowel who is McDSP. A voodoo coder... But many dont like the interfaces, because they dont look like vintage hardware. ,His MO, why just do emulation and limit the interface to an original hardware layout? Why not have the algorithms under the hood., but utilise what you can do with a gui. Totally underrated plug ins... Rant over.
But...you go get a Ryzen 7. Or 9 or M1 may be worth it especially if you don't have hardware with these you'll get a hardware sound with a good computer But....for $1800 you can get a The ART transx pre DBX XS 4 Space Rack DBX EQ Some good Headphones Makie Mixer Cables Now you got a hardware set up Opposed to spending $2050 with AA Dream Bundle But.....If you wanna be 100% daw AA is it I just don't see the point in spending 2000 with them instead of $1800 and now you got a rack analog set up to run tracks through and master
Thats why you get good in your Daw, let that do the heavy lifting and then any decent rack, and a decent mixer, with a really good interface and some good headphones will do the rest of the work
Right now Im using Two units as saturation, then I have a really good compressor, then I'm using another good compressor as a limiter, with a Soundcraft mixer, and I have an SSL to interface, using that with Pipeline and Studio One re
you should try the Gold 4 owning a few neve pieces got to say Acustica Gold 4 is just amazing,it has the same depth as or nearly as much as the real thing
Keep in mind, no two analog unit sounds the same. They are modeled from different pieces, that could cause the slight differences.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware of it!
And, people have different interpretations of what they're actually hearing.
this.
Do you has in plug for goat?
Since I have no experience with the hardware, I just turn the knobs on Acustica plugins until they sound fantastic. Yes, they have replaced many, many, many of my other plugins!
I love the way you sped up the video etc :) great review!
Thanks, Chris, get back soon for more speedups xD
Acusticas highend is their bread and butter!
Agree i didnt quite connect with Magenta at first but their Gold 4 is really damn good
The Purple 3 you selected is the vintage edition. Purple P3 is the re-issue modern version which should align closely with UAD version
excellent video, I loved the content and the format. thanks,
Thanks, Patricio!
To my guys on here that use windows , your best bet is to use a gaming computer for your studio , no matter what plugins i use i dont have cpu issues , just my suggestion . ( i use an i7 intel with reason 11)
Our two main studio machines are Core i9 heavy OC and latest Ryzen 9 xD
@@FoliaSound great choice, I was just giving a tip to those that are on here stating cpu issues with various plugins . I dont like mac at all ,Ive been through alot of computers and I have to say a gaming computer was the best choice I ever made . reason is a very cpu taxing program , but now i can run high track count projects with plugins no sweat , the highest track count ive mixed is 70-80 and i barely hit 50% cpu usage
@@MrFelonyLoc I just mixed 226 on my 2010 Mac Pro 12 core. I just barely got by. If even those new intro computers 12 years later can’t tackle 70-80 tracks, I’m not excited for when my computer dies. The worst is hitting the wall at 90% finished. The. Worst. lol. Cheers!
Very honest and demonstrable opinion. Yes, your eyes will hurt having to look into a magenta colored plugin, every designer worth his salt, knows clarity of image and type makes life better for the user, but how often do we see type without serifs so thin on colored backgrounds that make reading it, near impossible, it happens a lot.
When you said u bought used software licenses on knob cloud. For a moment I was lost in befuddlement. Shortly thereafter, you found a very special place in my heart. May God bless you my friend 😌🙏🏼♥️
T H A N K S !
Hi, finally a great comparison! Just a curiosity: are you working at 96000? because to really feel AA plugin work well, they recommend working at 96000
Yep, definitly only 96 kHz.
Yes, I was listening at 96 kHz, 24 bit, but none of this would be probably audible on UA-cam as AAC... See the pinned comment above for more details!
Guys, I just shared source 96 kHz 24 bit files with final results of my tests:https: //www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/3d0yd71462ehw6go570at/h?dl=0&rlkey=so82488a4us8a8tr781q77ewf
@@FoliaSound UA-cam hasn't used AAC for a while now broski. They are using OPUS which is an incredibly transparent lossy codec by the same guys that made FLAC. When you rip audio from UA-cam you will get a .webm file which is a container format, but the codec will always be A_OPUS. From what I've gathered so far they seem to be converting to 48.0 kHz resolution with a 16 bit depth, to save bits on streaming. But I have not fully tested this with enough music videos / audio streams yet. So take that bit with a grain of salt.
In UA-cam's own help docs they recommend that we use FLAC
or Linear PCM (wave) with a recommended sample rate of 44.1kHz. "Higher sample rates are accepted but not required (for example, 48kHz or 96kHz). 24-bit recommended, 16-bit acceptable." So it is possible to upload a 96kHz audio stream, the question is what will they do with it on the way out.
They are also doing their own proprietary normalization on the back end. So without a doubt there is a lot of conversion and loudness normalization happening. If possible, try to embed lossless formats in the video's audio stream, with highest resolution and bit depth settings as this will ensure the best possible playback of audio on the videos streamed on UA-cam and their own transcoded conversion process. Nice video by the way!
Cheers😎👍
@@FoliaSound nice!
I owned UAD for 14 years. I sold everything for this reason. Uad always have that same sonic signature. Muted and Smeary. Acustica Purple has such a better sound. Better transients, Stereo spread, saturation. UAD Manley Massive Passive it a total sham. Always grainy and dirty. Not even close to the real thing. Thanks for this Video. Try 3rd party Nebula Libs. Thats were the real gold is! Tim Petheric, Cupwise, AlexB, AITB, ect....All these are very cpu light
Thx, man, I'll try Nebula for sure!
That's simply not true. I had the original Massive Passive for many years and neither me nor any other persons could hear any difference between the UAD version and the original. There was just a slight difference in the bass. UAD is reaaaally close.
@@jochenh.7428 he just need to convince himself about his decision, it's obviously not true
Get your ears checked.
I like AA sound, can't complain in that matter. But after years and years of constant issues in Cubase + lag + CPU usage (it's overkill in big sessions) makes me sell all of them. I managed to avoid UAD for years, but I could replace all AA with other plugins. I don't miss them. The amount of headaches caused by problems with stability issues can't compensate for sound quality. The attitude of their representative on GS only helped me in my decision of removing AA from my sessions for good ;)
Mussolini would love how they run their FB community.
fantastic intro!
I kind of enjoy the confusing interfaces of AA plugins. Makes me feel less like I'm supposed to know what I'm doing.
Many people say this about AA. I had the same, but I just got used to it quite quickly :)
@@FoliaSound those who used hardware its no issue but those who grew up on fabfilter plugins though... lol
🤣😂 So true !!
hahahahaaaa
When you have said about "analog highs" on Manley's emulations I recall that this is UA-cam video which compressed... nah.. Love Pulsar Audio emulation tho )
I much preferred the Acustica Pultec: nicer low end and I agree with the comments about the depth and 3D sound compared to the UAD. But the Acustica Manley sounded weak and somewhat flat and veiled. The UAD version has much more life, and of course the GUI is more eye-friendly.
Acustica's GUIs should be a topic for serious academic study ;) I got used to them, but I'm not a fan until today, yet soundwise - usually nothing sounds better in virtual world...
the attenuation selector on the uad is on 10 and the aucustica is on 5 that why the uad sounds brighter
I double checked on that - when attenuation is "O", it makes no difference, whether it's 5, 10 or 15! :) Thanks for the vigilance anyway!
@@FoliaSound im looking at both plugins right now in your video, you are boosting around 4 on both but one is set at 5 and the other set at 10
@@MrFelonyLoc yep, but when only boosting - attenuation selection makes no difference!
that intro is dope! ❤🔥
Great review, really enjoyed your in-depth analysis of them. I've never owned UA plugins, but have some AA and really like them from the aspect of they have great sales and if you purchase from their website (something I didn't do to begin with, purchasing only on second hand license) you get a lifetime discount voucher level the more you get the higher the discount and lifetime updates, so buying them once and never having to worry about it as they continually update their plugins (something that did my head in with some other brands, each time the updated, they made me pay again and again and again)... The sound of AA I find very nice, but saying this I did a test from the likes of Access Analog and a few others and then compared their sounds with the same model Waves, AA and others and had a similar effect that you got in your tests, in that if you use each brands model plugin and set them exactly the same they will indeed sound different, what was disheartening to me with ALL the brands that once you tweak each different brand you can get them just about all sounding exactly the same including our beloved Waves plugins and I even tried this with AA Purple and a free pultec emulation from Kiive Audio called the Warmy EP1A Pultec which is free and I got exactly the same sound after tweaking it and the AA version, so I think it's not so much about what these emulations model so much it's about just tweaking them to their varied setups and how they've been programmed... But with the hardware versions of each, I couldn't quite achieve the same magic with any of them as hardware units are so variable and perhaps this is why you're getting the variance with AA and UA versions, AA models hardware and UA you mentioned was more digital and there are discrepancies, I actually really loved the sound of your UA plugins in this test very nice indeed... I love watching these tests but as for the above mentioned I stopped testing them side by side long ago as I know without spending a fortune on the hardware itself, I'll never achieve that additional 1-3% extra magic from the hardware, so AA seems to do it for me at present mixed with some other more digital sounding plugins. I like using AA after the digital work is done and taken out any unsavory sounds from my tracks and then just print the AA into each track if I'm using a lot of them like hardware, it forces me to get used to the software I have and not keep getting new stuff all the time (albeit that doesn't work at all, I still have G.A.S) LOL!
AA smoothes the transients and UA enhances them, as you say very subtle difference.
hmm even on my macbook speakers i can hear how the AA ist more stiff and open in the lower register, is more 3D overall and the transient response is very analogish. I think on EQs AA is the one to beat atm. You should try Azure2 it just feels so real its just unreal
I also hear UAD being quite flat and less deep than AA. It's subtle for sure but there's just something more natural about it. It's closer to Analog qualities that I'm familiar with. Openness, depth, space. You can really hear in the bass too how UAD gets a bit flat and thin comparatively. Most people won't know the diff though.
This, its so obvious how much more 3D sounding the AA plugin is over the UAD
pls kids i own both and they sound the same .... i use one or other as i feel the universe .. 3D mean nothing @@wibblewobble1934
Acustica purple has better transients. You could hear they were less smeared even when you matched the curve in plugin doctor.
yes exactly! and UAD even masks the events after the loud ones! At least Softube got that right compared to most other algo-plugs. To me theres no reason to use any other (coloring) EQ plugs than Acustica Audio at mixdown stage.
Ha, ha ))
the Acustica clearly brings weight & dimension, 3D? that is lacking in the UAD! However either wl get the job done!
my point exactly
Thats such a weird statement , so sound quality of final music means nothing ? its all about just doing it ? i am guessing you dont use them .
@@cornwallradiophonic6250 Not sure how his assertion was deemed a weird statement, I understood @Gutz opinion quite clearly.
Acustica's sound is more punchy and clear. Better instrument separation and sound stage. It really sounds more analog. In a mastering situation this means a lot.
I still use my Focusrite Liquid Channel and my Liquid Mix. Still wonderful tools
I remember them and they were really rockin'!
These do sound really hardware
I can see these being worth having one set to polish pre mastering before looping through analog gear
Hey, guys, FIY: I did all my test on 96 kHz 24-bit (though there's 48 kHz info on the screen - I did all the listening tests in 96 kHz, but my OBS didn't want to record 96 kHz, I suppose that my RME card needs servicing, it causes trouble when working on multiple apps over 48 kHz). Grab final 96 kHz 24 bit files from my tests here: www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/3d0yd71462ehw6go570at/h?dl=0&rlkey=so82488a4us8a8tr781q77ewf
What do you think about Acustica Audio tools? Are you using them? Planning to do so? Quit? Let me know in the comments!
Acustica is going for QUANTITY over quality. ALL of their plugins I mean ALL are bugged / causing delay, stop playing anytime, when change the preset. They do perfectly well - youtube videos, excellent looking GUI, etc. except the optimizing plugins for using them. I mean who could use more instances of their plugins on mixing? I have massive CPU but it already have enough, maybe on mastering, but all those glitches that it causes, I mean no thanks.. they look BEAUTIFUL, though if nobody have glitches, then I wonder why I got them since I use Windows 10 and have fast and optimized PC.
Hi, do you think that in the end you can't beat owning a neve? Or could the plugin suffice if on a budget.
Hey! I think that Neve will always be Neve, BUT I recently got an interesting hardware: Camden EC-1 by Cranborne Audio. One of its saturation settings reminds me of 1073, same character definitely. I don't need a Neve now, because EC-1 is a beast itself...
The plugins seem great. I was dying to get an RCA BA-6A emulation. The customer service and compatibility and optimization is what is bad. Also the inability to have a clear and concise statement about what works with pro tools/operating systems/CPU architecture/etc is pretty frustrating.
Yep, I've heard that it's especially painful for Mac people. PC Win 10 here, no hassle so far!
Would love to see: UAD Helios Type 69 vs AA Viridian (Helios and Siemens/Telefunken)
Acustica Audio's problem is they can't even get their plugins to work in M1 or even Rosetta 2 yet on Monterey (M1 Ultra users are screwed). Use many plugs? They only use one core (of 24). And being heavy CPU intensive plugins, you can't use any more than three on a master channel in a 96khz session. AA refuse to update or respond to customer support in any coherent way. PC master race? Now they are discounting their expensive plugins like Waves. Fall from grace. Avoid if M1 Ultra or M2 user.
Would love to know more about the Mammoth in Nebula vs Magenta
I agree that the interface and the laggines of acustica, but once you get used to it they pay off with amazing sound. Also nebula 3rd party libs are so good. I didn't get on the train of UAD because I knew their dsp is outdated and expensive. I can run more acuáticas with my pc than a friend with 2 octo pcie cards, and acuáticas are heavy on CPU. Now with the spark subs model we'll see what if I try them, but still not ready for windows and M1 native.
Yep, all this is true :) And I'm actually digging though Nebula right now ;)
Ryzen 9 5950X and fast RAM + SSD, no perceptible slowdown here, and I can load hundreds of instances. I think many users misunderstand the "instance on/off" buttons as being a band bypass. They're not, they load and unload vectors from memory, so they take time. They are just for the purpose of saving RAM and CPU in case you are not using that band. Not for A/B purposes.
Great video! You´re right, that it can be difficult to use AA compressors or that some people say, that many of their comps aren´t on the same level like other brands (except from Magenta & Nickel) But especially with Acusticas Nebula and N4 libraries from TimP or Cupwise you get compressors, that are not comparable to anything ITB. Although they´re using the sampling approach/tech, but with some tweaks...Using them is another world and they hold up easily to their hardware counterparts
Exactly, sir!
AA presented more low end fundamental pitch to my ear. Eq is t exactly linear. I don’t expect a 2db tweak at 3k to present the same as 2db at a less audible frequency like 18 k. Nice job.
Thanks!
Bro remember that they are modeled off different units, no two real pultec hardware sounds the same, and as they age of the unit gets older they change the character in sound, I own both uad and acustica plugins, and the difference is night as a day for me, Acoustica plugins adds this warmth to my mix like no other, while CPU intensive, however, I have a way around that. In my opinion UAD as nothing on Accustica, only speed. Hit me up, I would like to submit and mix and master I did for a review, with only acoustic plugs and u will understand why I say to have this opinion and I would love to see if you to get a simular mix in the box with uad. I think would make for good content.
great vid....Plugin Doc is an awesome plugin...cheers
Hey, Johnny, welcome back! :) Yep, Plugin Doc is a great tool...
I think it's better to print acoustica plugins.... You can't exactly have two of them on every track, and buses and the mixbus.
What do you think of the Jet mix eq by AA?
Actually nothing, because I don't know it :)
@@FoliaSound excellent
AA high frequency performs smoother than UA and gives a bit more excitment.
love this channel and u. keep it up sir!
Thanks!
I use Acustica plugins considering them as “something analog-workflow”.. I mean, freezing tracks all the time to release CPU jajahah I dont work professionally, just to do my beats
To those who can compare both brands:
what are the best UAD plugins that hard to replace with Acustica?
exactly this is the right thinking , good job
I tried it but it was asking too much of my cpu then I started skiping it
Thanks for the comprehensive comparison. I’m not on the UAD platform but have been searching for a Manley Massive Passive emulation that is comparable to the UAD plug-in. I have been using Magenta however I recently saw advertisement for Melda MTurboEQ that includes a Massive Passive emulation as well as 10 other vintage EQ plugins in one plug-in. The gui looks much more similar to the original Manley as well as the default settings. Wondering if you had tried the Melda version and what your thoughts were. Thanks!
Meldas are great and they deserve a separate review!
Thank you for this video
Nice you liked it, thanks!
With analogue gear, we want the immediate response, hence being analogue. In the plugin world, we strive for that response too, so it totally defeats the purpose of having lag and a slight pause before the impulse response kicks in. I tired Acustica and found it totally broke up the flow and concept of mixing fast and not letting the plugin get in the way. Besides, UAD are still the GOAT plugins IMHO.
I'm also into UAD, but I got used to AA drawbacks :) I really love their sound!
The thing I like about Acustica's plugins is that I have to mix more by ear. I can't just lean on the presets I made for myself, or the exact same things I always do. But if I put in the time, I think the results are better w/ Acustica--but we're talking a 5-10% difference (tops!) versus UAD. I think Acustica is under-rated. It is UAD's equal.
The question is really this-- do you want to put in the time to learn Acustica's new interfaces, and quirks? Even though you already know UAD and you're happy with your sound?
AA>>>>>>> no comparison, UAD = crispy digital sounding high end (listened with: Beyer 770’s with a Schiit Asgard, and HS8’s with HS8 sub)
Great video, i'm a Acoustica audio fan , I noticed you have a computer screen on your right side in your studio on the wall i have one also nearly in the same spot and everyone has told me to cover it because it will cause reflections, do you have issues with that ?
Hey, Tuff! Well', I got quite a lot of stuff in the studio that causes reflections :) A studio table, a coffe table, monitors. I believe taht i set them up the way that reduces all the reflections to an acceptable level. the acoustics of my room are good!
@@FoliaSound Thanks for the response appreciate it, I also have DJ equipment where your keyboards are, so I was worried not much I can do about that ,my room is treated , was thinking to hang a baffle or cover the screen when needed
I think you should hang it in a plae that doesn't produce first reflections, that will bring you more or less there :)
UAD sounds brighter, possibly warmer.
did you run this at 96k since thats what the actual analog gear is sampled at it sounds so pure at 96k fam
Yes, I did. Read the first comment to learn more :)
AA - my favorite
can you try it agin with the apogee
I mean if you are runnin these plugs thru plugdoc and you are trying to compare analog units gotta look at hammerstein and the harmonics
With this singel cell level music...how can you judge anything?
07:57 bass of acustice sounds way clearer to me 14:51 ja the top end and harmonic distortion of acoustica is the best you can get in the box... but why are there so few reviews out there?
THe acoustica sounds so lively compared to UAD...i am so amazed.... i put it everywhere..
AA really sound good compared to the Hardware and other Plugins. But the UI of AA Plugs is a mess and also the names of the Plugins. You never know what is what. At least the plugs are now more stable the years ago
great comparison. i just tried my first Acustica plugin, their free JET dynamic EQ. Installation was confusing, the user interface is confusing, and as you said the names of the units and the way the knobs respond is also confusing but the unit DOES sound good, has resonant lows and clean highs. PS their website and installation app are ALSO extremely confusing. It seems like their audio tech is strong but their user experience is weak.
Yep, I see it same way. I think AA tried to be somehow different, exceptional in their user experience and they actually are, but not in the best way...
Don't worry. You get used to it!
Good stuff, but I m curious to compare with real units
Yep, that's the real deal, sure thing. Hope to bring it to you one day!
Notice
Unless
You've got a high end i7
Ryzen 5, 6 or 7 or Fast Mac these will not work properly
AA plugins are different
Because thier using algorithm respones to intimate audio samples
Thar makes these the best
But.... the are DSP HEAVY!!
Yes, they are :) Core i9 OC + latest Ryzen 9 running here in the studio though :)
Cool
New
Ryzen 7 is running at 3.8 ghtz
Acustica audio, are definitely, the most Hardware sounding plugins, but oh, I'm still thinking the plugin Alliance, Softube, Tone Empire and analog obession, and some Waves plugins just have a more pleasant and musical sound color to them, especially on a great mix
I think
U He Presswerks
Plugin Alliance SSL channels
Analog Obsession
S Comp, Waves H Comp, and API 2500
And Tone Empire Fairchild
Sound as good as any AA Compressor
AA makes you use your ears and that's the magic of pure analog
AA tortures the cpu of a computer and causes latency with way too big gui and bad compressors, not magic at all
Yeah my studio is in the middle of the farm open space, very quite environment I am alone doing the shootout myself... ACUSTICA emulation sucks...I prefered KAZROG TRUE DYNAMICS COMP action and sound is like HW 99%, Analog obsession eqs and some of its free comp, Fuse audio Lab ,but ACUSTICA is better than Waves and slate
@@najinelson6742 cpu magic
AA plugins are specially about soundstage and musicality. Every AA has a better soundstage, preamp image and musicality than ANY other brand. This happens at the expense of CPU and latency. I don't care if an eq or compressor takes 0,5 sec to load if it matches 98% of a machine I'll likely never be able to buy.
Well said.
the thing is that acustica has very bad and overcomplicated interface designs (and is cpu heavy of course). but the behaviour of the plugins is just like analog stuff: weird and unpredictable, you always feel like something is broken in a good way, because it just sounds deep, full and rich.
All true!
AA all the way. Uad i sold after 1 month , its glossy and not that good or much of its plugs . Some are very nice . AA slowly is leaving the rest behind , your missing a trick if you do not try it or use it but its expensive unless you wait for the sales .
Great Test 👍👍👍👍
Thanks, man, get back for more soon!
@@FoliaSound sure 😊
match curves sounds similar bro kkkkkkkk thanks for video bro
i bought loads of acustica - thought it was the best thing going - then i realised it used so much cpu and was not so good - now i dont use it - at first i thought it was the best ... now ... no
Yes, it's a hog, every convolution plugin actually is. But I really believe that their EQs are unbeatable out there...
@@FoliaSound i bought 15 of them .... the only one i still use is Ivory ... and now i barely use that one - i dont think they are that good
but totally understand your opinion to be just as valid as mine - check back with me after 2 years of having them ... then try out the weiss eq ... and man i think its better
Strange test... audience can simply watch with disabled sound and enabled text. Same result..
Too close to worry about it IMO. Buy one and master it so you can tweak it to your will and never think about if it sounds like "the real thing" again.
the acoustica sounded more alive and 3-d like audio suspended in outterspace. im listening on Genelecs 1030 A's 1995 models
I just tried all the free stuff from aa and it sound pretty awesome. The lagging and CPU usage is big, so for mastering and maybe for sound design. But it's the first time I got drop outs on my system.... But Stil sooo goood sounding.... Wrghh 🤣
Get a monster PC like I did :)
Great vid
Thanks, man!
Plugin alliance
Native SSL
And Analog Obsession
Probably best vsts overall
My PA lost all their shootouts with Acustica. I like the other two though!
Man, one huge disadvantage to acustica audio, is sound control, everything ran through acustica audio is going to sound boxy
With plugin Alliance you've got way more sound control
Matter fact if you use the right plugins with plugin Alliance after you get through with the mix, you can literally customize that each time to make it sound like it got ran through just the right hardware for that mix
That thing you are calling "unpredictable" is band interaction, if that disturbs you that much you should stick to digital. AA has some flaws, but the openness is undeniable even in very bad speakers.
Whoah, sir/madam! I never said it.disturbs me so much, I simply pointed it out! Band interaction is albo emulated in all UAD products, I believe it's more about how all the knobs are calibrated. You've surely noticed that finally I was able to get the same curve from both Acustica and UAD.
Plus: I simply learned AA curves and now they are my go tos!
Acustica is going for QUANTITY over quality. ALL of their plugins I mean ALL are bugged / causing delay, stop playing anytime, when change the preset. They do perfectly well - youtube videos, excellent looking GUI, etc. except the optimizing plugins for using them. I mean who could use more instances of their plugins on mixing? I have massive CPU but it already have enough, maybe on mastering, but all those glitches that it causes, I mean no thanks.. they look BEAUTIFUL, though if nobody have glitches, then I wonder why I got them since I use Windows 10 and have fast and optimized PC.
Well, I have to tell you that Acustica has got some best quality tools out there. Their Pultec emu or their Manley bundle are simply unbeatable, nothing like them. Also their Taupe is crazy good, same for some channel strips...
In the end, the listener doesn't give a shit.
Yes, the listener doesn't have to know what you used and usually he doesn't care, but you, as a creator, should always aim at best skills and set of tools you can, because they do make difference. The listener won't even know what kind of "magic" there is in your music, but at the end of day he'll say: "this track is just ok, but this one is amazing". Same applies to every creative branch: filmmaking, photography, painting etc. Your tools are usually invisible for your audience, but they really do matter, Paul!
@@FoliaSound Fabfilter has won more grammies than chasing tools. Its never about the tools, ITS THE EAR!!
I got nothing about FabFilters, using them all the time, they are also quality tools! And yes your skills and talent you called "the ear" are most important, always. Still: the set of tool you're using does matter, too. The listener won't know, but he'll whisper: "wow". That's what I meant!
@@FoliaSound Burna boy won a grammy via fabfilter plugins and yes they matter but teach about the music we all know "Analogue" plugins are a scam. They all don't Null!!
Frankly not a fan of either company. Both have frustrating UI and aren’t really worth the cost or CPU load. There are tons of lightweight plugins out there that do the same thing. Plug-in doctor shows u that the magic behind Acustica and UAD is just saturation and EQ, which u can get in a myriad of flavors from 100s of developers.
Fair point, sir, but I still believe that both AA and UAD sound somehow better that some others. Can I measure it? Probably not, but I can definitely hear that!
Are You kidding yes?
but this is a great test
A moral comparison of plug-ins!
lol
Moral? How is it moral?
AA makes UAD sound like a waves plugin
First of all, you didn't test Plugin Doctor on hardware, so you can't claim which is better. I have both UAD and Acoustic plugin i plus hardware and they are very close, but Acoustic is much, much closer to the original hardware, much closer than UAD. Otherwise, I have been a user of UAD for years
Judging from Tonex... If done right I think the future of best analog modeling.... Could very easily be machine learning. A.I. is good for something that is NOT scary evil, at least.... Antonis could be better if they did A more serious anti-aliasing treatment... It's really impressive though!
Each plugin has slightly different curves. I prefer the Acustica version as it has a light roll off on the low end on the pultec
The gain difference is different as well. The boost on UAD is almost 2 db less. The curves are not the same either
The thing to look for is level matched in flat. The UAD is more low end forward and slightly darker(like an old Pulse Pultec)
The acustica has a sort of vocal forward to it that I like. I also feel like the low end it more woody on the UAD but more round and smooth on the acoustica.
Both are great
Was hoping Acustica sounded better but UAD sounds noticeably better to my ear and I've spent 15+ years in audio. Great video!
Thanks!
I know...."Everything sounds better because its UAD" BUT...honestly I use Austica Audio for mixing and mastering with analog Rack....They both sound great...but the problem is UAD are made for people "doing digital mastering" Hybrid with analog outboard gear...Aucstica smokes UAD.....!!!
Acoustica destroys uad by light years ive been using analog devices from i was training for engineering and when i use nebula with tim p alex b and tim cupwise i said holy moly im using real hardware in a pluhin format i forget about the real hardware
Magenta easily stomps the UAD, Not even a comparison if webbing honest! Good video though! Enjoyed it Thanks!
Thanks, Randall, hope to see you back soon :)
you don't need uad card to run acoustica, so a clear win for AA
Acustica Audio sounds incredible. One thing a lot of people don't realise is just how important the signal level going into AA's plugins has on the sound behaviour. That first Pultec example it really jumps out how much more 3D sounding the AA version is compared to the UAD which sounds flat by comparison in terms of depth.
Exactly. There is a distinguishable difference between the two. AA is more 3D and transients are "Faster". And I am using wireless headphones and I can hearthis.
Plug in chasing ill call it...Emulations are everywhere, after all, they even create the GUI to look like the original units.. Thats the candy..... Why?
Thats why I respect Colin McDowel who is McDSP. A voodoo coder... But many dont like the interfaces, because they dont look like vintage hardware. ,His MO, why just do emulation and limit the interface to an original hardware layout? Why not have the algorithms under the hood., but utilise what you can do with a gui.
Totally underrated plug ins...
Rant over.
try analog obsession, they are for free
I know them and I love them! And it's worth supporting their creator on Patreon!
8 times in one sentence ? You need a plugin for "GONA" correction. :-)
Yep, sort of. I'm working on it :)
But...you go get a Ryzen 7. Or 9 or M1 may be worth it especially if you don't have hardware with these you'll get a hardware sound with a good computer
But....for $1800 you can
get a
The ART transx pre
DBX XS
4 Space Rack
DBX EQ
Some good Headphones
Makie Mixer
Cables
Now you got a hardware set up
Opposed to spending
$2050 with AA Dream Bundle
But.....If you wanna be 100% daw AA is it
I just don't see the point in spending 2000 with them instead of $1800 and now you got a rack analog set up to run tracks through and master
Well, ART and DBX + Mackie are really great pieces of equipment, but I'm not sure they can deliver what, i.e., Massive Passive or Vari-Mu can...
Ew gross
Thats why you get good in your Daw, let that do the heavy lifting and then any decent rack, and a decent mixer, with a really good interface and some good headphones will do the rest of the work
Right now
Im using
Two units as saturation, then I have a really good compressor, then I'm using another good compressor as a limiter, with a Soundcraft mixer, and I have an SSL to interface, using that with Pipeline and Studio One re
Getting Stellar Mixes....
total UAD victory. the delay and cpu use of acustica makes it basically unusable for me.
I think Magenta over the UAD Manley, but the UAD Pultech sounded better.
you should try the Gold 4 owning a few neve pieces got to say Acustica Gold 4 is just amazing,it has the same depth as or nearly as much as the real thing
If we want to see sketches or comedy stuff, we watch that...I camed here for information...I don't have time for bad acting intros.
attenuation
Acustica sounds more Analog to me
I totally agree!