DON'T spend $3800 on an API 5500 when it's this close .. (I actually prefer one of these plugins 😱)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лип 2024
- API 5500 ACCESS ANALOG HARDWARE vs PLUGINS || Lindell 50 vs Acustica Pink 4 vs UAD API vision channel strip (uad spark plugin)
The 5500 is among the most highly regarded equalizers ever created due to the signature API sound and flexible design. Find the right combination of filters using the 4 overlapping bands with the ability to adjust the EQ range to 1/4 or or 1/2 gain for mastering grade fine tuning or broad adjustments with the selectable high and low shelves. Just passing signal through the 5500 gets you ‘that API sound’ from the custom API2503 transformer and the 2520 and 2510 OpAmps delivering +30db of headroom before clipping! Easily compare processed to unprocessed signal using the EQ bypass switch. Get the API tone and smooth musical sound that can only be found in analog filters!
So, with all that being said I had to create a Pau Third Mixing Wednesday music production software plugin comparison with universal audio plugins especially as one of my patrons from my patreon campaign kindly built a computer for me which includes an internal uad pci-2 card. So.. a plugin shootout with acustica audio plugins, plugin alliance lindell 50 series and UAD plugins.. let the test begin!
And remember, all you audio engineers / mix engineers / music producers .. play nice .. please.
🌠SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
/ mixingwedesdays
🏷️ PRODUCT LINKS
www.acustica-audio.com/store/...
www.plugin-alliance.com/en/pr...
www.uaudio.com/uad-plugins/ch...
accessanalog.com/product/api-...
🎶 FOLLOW MY DEBUT ALBUM JOURNEY
• MY DEBUT ALBUM JOURNEY
🎤 RELEASING A SONG?
Music distribution playlist: • Playlist
Songwriting playlist: • MIXING SESSION WITH PA...
⬇️ OTHER VIDEOS LIKE THIS
PLUGIN ALLIANCE LINDELL 50 SERIES VS ACUSTICA AUDIO PINK 4 || 'SCIENTIFIC' API PLUGIN SHOOTOUT
• 'SCIENTIFIC' API PLUGI...
PLUGIN ALLIANCE LINDELL AUDIO 50 SERIES vs ACUSTICA AUDIO PINK || API Channel strip plugin shootout
• PLUGIN ALLIANCE LINDEL...
📖 CHAPTERS
0:00 intro
0:55 plugin test setup
3:02 kick drum shootout
4:26 snare shootout
6:00 drum overheads shootout
8:00 bass guitar shootout
9:43 electric guitar shootout
10:38 outro
12:50 final mix shootout & blind test
🖱️CONTACT ME
Email: Paul.Third@dundeeandangus.ac.uk
Instagram: / paulthird_uk
What we saying then?? .. What was your favourite 🤓
Well... I didn't expect them to be that close tbh. At this point I'm really wondering how it sounds uncompressed, because I'm sure that most details are gone by yt algorithm. So you may consider giving us some link to uncompressed wavs.
Now to me the winner is Lindell, just because I have it 😂 but if I had a UAD rig I'd probably pick that over Lindell. AA to me is a bit controversial - it sounds really good, but because of all this little switches that give you lots of choices (A, B, C, pre 1, 2, etc.) it's the slowest to use. But on the other hand why should I buy externally accelerated system while having i9 with plenty of power to run hundreds of plugins...
The UA-cam compression thing isn't that bad honestly. It's one of the biggest myths that it completely over compresses your audio. It compresses but it's not enough to lose all the details of the original. A lot of people question the UA-cam thing on my videos but it's probably because other channels don't go into as much level matching detail as me so the differences you hear in other videos is due to rough level matching. Trust me it's as close as it sounds. You can see the time I take in the blind tests. I had to listen hard 🤓
@@PaulThird So I'll trust you 🙂 Actually seeing you struggling with blind tests made me feel like it's not that bad with my listening skills 😂
Honestly when it comes to the same eq's being compared and they are level matched. Its normally very hard unless the plugin is poorly coded, modelled or riddled with aliasing.
BTW I said it in the first video I done with Lindell and pink. X16 oversampling is an absolute must. Even though I updated the Lindell 50 it still bugs with me where the fader resets itself and defaults to constant gain. The Lindell snare wasn't sounding right and was a bit muddy. Thought I had it bypassed and it was cause the plug went to X8 oversampling for no reason. I genuinely could hear something wasn't right. Put x16 back and the top end re-appeared.
IF your not using Lindell in x16 you are really missing out man 😱
@@PaulThird Since I've build my current desktop PC a year ago I'm constantly trying to use 100% of CPU in one session. So I'm using all plugins at max oversampling, sometimes it's even 32x, and even doing sessions of over 100 tracks, including virtual instruments, I can nearly hit 50%...
And yeah... Lindell 50 is really buggy plugin... I have issue with it that sometimes it cause feedback loop with itself. Fortunately Reaper is muting feedbacking tracks automatically so my ears and speakers are safe
Paul Third's on the fast track to becoming the best shootout channel. Bravo and thank you for your hard work.
Thank you 🤓 I do appreciate it as these do take me quite a bit of time haha
Thanks for doing this, I closed my eyes and could always identify the hardware thanks to only one thing : It's like the hardware has almost an octave lower more definition in the low-end (not as strongly obvs, it's still quite subtle). It made it very evident on the drum and bass example as well as the OH or anything that had transients and enough low-end information. Although it is impossible to deny how that the plugins sound good still.
So... my experience with hardware is that when I boost the high end of the hardware it addresses the roundness of the mids. When I boost high end in the plugin it boosts the high end and does not touch the roundness of the mids. So we're left with a digital type sound. If I boost 20k on the: Lindell 50, Slate FG-A, Waves 550b, Analog Obsession MERICA, I get a similar result to each other. The API 5500 itself doesn't boost the top in the same way. It doesn't get louder or sharper. The rest of the frequencies are more a match. But somehow, it sweetens and attenuates in the 6k region while it's at it, or something like that. Which might be why the guitars were so obvious. I'm not sure where your boosts were, though. I tried boosting a plugin at 20k and attenuating at 12k a bit, and kind of but not really got the sound. So I'm doing that more often with plugins. For me the hardware wins in the high mids/top end. That's where I get build up in mixes overall that frustrates me to eq out. But then if I opt for the hardware, the work is already done, and I can boost further. Fortunately, even 1 5500 at the end of the mixbus can really help to address that. Too bad I can't afford to keep it. lol. I just found the MAGPHA EQ though. Sadly, the fellow who developed it abandoned it. But it can help open up a sound in the mids/top in that rounded way that other mastering plugins don't quite do for me. Love your reviews. Thank you Paul!
Based on personal long experience, the plugins ( Uad and Lindell) are great on single tracks for mixing. Analog versions ( I owned 5500, 2500, 527’s) are still unbeaten on the mixbus.
About what you said about Lindell's mudiness... I think originally The way Api is designed to be used, is also with a bit more energie in the Lo Mids, depending of with how much signal you're feeding the preamp so subsequently how much you're cranking the preamp. Api has a beautiful Mid, Hi-Mid and Treble to presence colour when you push the Eq knobs. In the event of Eq->Comp, In order to raise the bottom, and you need to push it, Comp has no s-ch and parallel d/w knob, so to match Highs and Mids you have to feed it with very low, fixed Q, frequencies and your Lo-Mid range remanes hollow, unless you cut back the level before the preamp and cranck the preamp instead. Then that mudiness is your lifesaver.
Also like with the Neve. The one who does not know the tricks with
preamp and filter cut positions changing the fq span of Eq knobs and Eq fq positions cuts or boost changing the Fq curves on other knobs, simular tu Pultec. That one is baffled by the Neve and probabily think it's an antique crap. Like new digital kids, uses only Neve compressor and for some verry strange purpose.
excellent. I applaude this new direction with comparing to acces analog. Is such an obvious thing to do but we don't have much comparisons online. Kee up the good work Paul!
Yeah I think this is now my 6th or 7th video using access analog. When I eventually wipe them out I'll need to really start looking around haha
Your team song for your brand has a full low end!👌Again this video implies in my view that the most important thing in music is getting it right from the source and best composition/production/mixing/recording skills.
🤓🤓
It's amazing, thanks for the video 🙌
🤓🤓
Thanks for doing this comparison. I do wish that a loop of an acoustic instrument other than drums had been used.
I'm fortunate to have all 3 plugin versions and I base my usage on resource management mainly. I have a good computer but can't run arbitrary Acustica instances (plus they're slower to tweak) and I only have 2 UAD DSP cores. As a result I use Lindell for mixing (TMT so nice for that application), UAD for primarily recording (a little for important tracks and busses), and Acustica for important tracks and busses.
Now I have the i9 I can actually use acustica in proper real time now. With the i5 everything was getting freezed haha
@@PaulThird Ahh yeah, that's the stuff. I actually got a second machine recently so I might look at doing REAPER's Reamote to offload some processing via network.
That was fascinating. In the last blind test I chose UAD. Which makes me happy and sad. Happy cause I own it but have neglected it and sad because I chose it over the hw. When pink came out I shot it against uad and pink won so I'm gonna have to go back and try it again. Thanks PH
I was very pleasantly surprised with UAD. Genuinely wasn't expecting what I heard. Right out the box. No mucking about. Has the sound
They all sound pretty amazing tbh
🤓🤓
Paul is torn between his two loves: hardware and treble! :) Thanks for the shootout, and thanks to the PC donator!
😂😂 Those rounded off highs must be the hardware as nobody has said anything yet haha if that's true then that's crazy the difference in analog to digital for highs.
FYI I may be chilling out on the treble after my 2nd single. Mixed it without a reference to see where my ear is at.. Yup, mixed it too bright haha 😅
Probably daft to do that to yourself and mix without a reference but.. I know the truth now 😂
@@PaulThird i wonder what the result would be if matched by ear rather than by settings. maybe just equal?
I'd say I would have likely got even closer if the gain wasn't stepped. Bar the guitars as that's the max you can push 8k on that unit. The plugs maybe could have had 3db shaved off to make them more rounded and less bright but that just shows me the difference between analog and digital high end (assuming that the units high end is precise)
Awesome: The Hardware has super nice harmonics and the plugins do not come close and are sounding a little bit flatter. Can be easy be heard on the ATH r70x headphones. I always was able to find the API in the examples, except in the bass example I was wrong. Plugins are coming close and can represent the EQ-curves but not the sound of the transformer or the harmonics. On the guitars it was night and day! The difference becomes clear when you have 50 audio tracks through HW vs 50 tracks through plugins. Maybe also the converter plays a role in this field. I heard that the API was darker than the plugins: Maybe the converter is old or just only a sound card?
Tbh im away to do another cause I never fully matched the curves cause I didn't know how at that time. I've got a feeling even linear digital eq's can get that sound as after testing it's harmonics it's as clean as a digital eq. The "transformer" sound thing on this API is pretty much bollocks and I'm sure I can prove it by matching the curves bang on
My friend i have no idea what channel strip to get. Which is the best for rock music? Price doesn’t matter.
You rock, Stephan!
🤟🤟🤟
Don t you think there is more interest to cet dynamic hw like comp than eq hw ? I mean eq are easier to emulate ? Aldo secondly : don t you think it depends on the quality of conversion (DA and AD) that is crucial ? I mean if you haven t a perfect conversion you loose thé avantage of hw , right ?
Musicians and engineers today don''t know how good they have it. When I started in 1972 a studio good enough for pro sound was out of reach for all but the wealthiest. You either had to get a loan the size of buying a nice home or inherit a fortune. I chose to work in studios already in existence starting out as a session musician for a few years before the owner turned the knobs over to me. Oh course all the knobs and microphones belonged to real hardware and considered the finest in classic gear today. Great world for musicians today!
🤓🤓
I would love to see you do some comparisons eventually with some hardware hands on in your studio.
The reason I’m interested is I’m curious to know if there’s a difference without whatever it is that access analog do in the middle.
I think these are really great services by the way and thanks for introducing me to them! But I am curious if they introduce a noticeable change to the sound by having their software/protocols in between < nothing to back whether I think this would make a difference just curious since surely anything in the chain could in theory.
The dbx 160a shootout was the compressor hands on 🤓
@@PaulThird hadn’t got to this one yet will check it out!
A little late to the party on this but Paul, I fiddled with the AA API and also thought it felt lacking in the highs. I contacted them about this and apparently the range knobs weren't calibrated correctly so it may not have been able to get the highs you/I were reaching for, So just to keep that in mind.. and also, your welcome! ;)
🤓
The weirdest thing. I preferred the UAD on almost every single track in the blind tests, and then I went strongly for the hardware for the master bus. There was just an energy the others didn’t have. Interesting.
Thanks for these videos, this is great!
🤓🤓
Pink seemed to soften the very initial transient. So I thought it was the worst. But it ended up sounding the best in the bus mix, maybe because if the softer transiensts.
🤓🤓
I think everyone is influenced by the youtuber. I went to another shootout video where the youtuber was kind of praising the Lindell 50 and everyone agreed with him. I come here and everyone hates the Lindell 50 haha. 😂😂 I agree the UAD sounds really close, but I still like the Lindell, and bought it on sale. It works with the material I use, and as a channel strip I feel like it is a swiss army knife, this could be my desert island plugin. You are right it wasn't the greatest one in the shootout, but this is by a very tiny margin, they all sounded pretty close to me, and that satisfies me enough to enjoy the plugin.
Could be the youtuber influence. At the end of the day you just need to go with what works for you which I'm glad you've done. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think cause I'm not mixing for you. You did the right thing man. Don't let anybody tell you what works for you
@@PaulThird I'm still a huge fan of your videos! And your advice is solid! I have learned more about what the plugins do under the hood and which companies are true to their marketing from your videos! In my humble opinion, I think you are the best UA-camr right now giving consumers like us very informed reports of the products we buy! 😊 This is the best plugin shoot out channel on UA-cam hands down! 💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
🤜🤛
I had an API 5500 for a year but sold it when I did my own "null test" with the Waves 550B plugin... and then I null tested it with FabFilter EQ... and then null tested it with Cubase's stock EQ... and then I decided EQ is the easiest analogue hardware to emulate.
That's interesting cause mixbus tv done a test with his 5500 vs Waves API and I could hear big diffrences.. But.. was that at 96k and level matched correctly? 🤷♂️ I did think if the waves wasn't at 96k then it could be aliasing and possibly level diffrences as I think it was done in the moment if I recall correctly
@@PaulThird My test would have been at 44.1 or 48k. I haven't seen that MixBus episode, but if he didn't render to audio both files and then manually shift them into perfect phase there would always be a difference. Also, most analogue hardware has a slight level difference between L and R channels and possible crosstalk (some would say "mojo" ;-) so again, more ways to produce a difference. To be fair, my null wasn't zero... somewhere around -60dB... so, not worth the thousands of dollars I had sitting in the rack! Congrats on the Aural Exciter! Remember to always dial back what "sounds good" because it's like icing a cake... we don't need a 2 cm thick for it to add sweetness!
Yeah I'm gonna use it as a send and dial in to taste in parallel. I'm quite excited to get it all set up 🤓 I watched a few videos with it and it can get pretty wet pretty quick but they had it on the source so I think it could do some great thing in parallel.. And also be interesting to see if the plugins do the same thing 🤔
Interesting. I suite agréé, and think thé difference is obvious with compresses, don t you think ?
@@mixphantom0101 My guy that's what I've been trying to tell people the slight delay or reflection and crosstalk are what makes the difference they are hearing lol hence imperfection.
Softube has their version of the API plugin that sound good too
I think software has caught up to hardware sound wise at least for a couple of years now. At this stage it's about haptics and workflow which are all valid reasons to get the hardware.
Dunno about workflow as plugins have full recall and can be used anywhere and in multiple instances. I'd actually say from a workflow aspect hardware is more of a ballache as you have to set up as an insert bla bla but that's just me
I mean if you wanna spend $3,000 to get some knobs and buttons, that's your money...but I'd spend it elsewhere
Indeed interesting to know if the hardware unit was/is faulty. It's quite wooly compared to the plugins. And yes, the Lindell's top end isn't exactly pleasant. That leaves me with Pink as my favourite.
I'm waiting on any hardware API user to confirm this top end .. But I still wait 😔 its been bugging me all week haha
Had an API user confirm the top end in the unit is actually right 😅
@@PaulThird Ha, weird! Thanks for investigating, Paul!
UAD is surprisingly good. Pink was quite transienty, but I do really like the hardware. It's got the umph. Maybe the 5500 is not good to compare against the 550b
5500 is practically a stereo 550b though so I'd imagine it to be almost like for like to a 550b.. No? 🤔
@@PaulThird The softube american class a actually emulates the 5500 api eq.
I've seen in a comment that you said "this might be digital top end." Is it really such a thing? Is this for real or just something people say? And if there is how do we fix it? Do you need your entire chain to be analogue or just on insert at the end. What is the reason of "digital top end." Before I got into music production I was a programmer and now this sound like a wierd phenomenon for me personally. I would love a video in witch you talk about it. And if you already have one I am sorry for asking. Love your videos :)
A lot of analog units have a high end roll off. Think it's to do with impedance.. I think 🤔 Especially when working to tape there would be a noticeable high end roll off. Digital can go right to the top of our hearing threshold and actually well beyond 20k.
Also digital is super clean where in analog you have noise and harmonics that come into play which can soften the top end and round it off. Digital meant you could get super clean highs but the downside was that could be what many call sterile and harsh if abused. Many were used to the natural smoothing affect of analog. Digital can also create harmonics above niquist which when reflected back into the frequency spectrum turns into aliasing which is harmonics unrelated to the fundamental.
So sometimes certain units can have a certain high end smoothing or roll off and the plugs can perhaps be a bit too clean in the high end which makes it sound a lot brighter and to some harsher or more exciting. It's pretty subjective.
You don't need analog gear. You can simply roll off some highs or stick a tape plug or saturation to it to roll off or soften the highs.
Hope that helps 🤓
@@PaulThird it doesn't sound subjective. But a natural roll of feels like something that all plugin manufacturers can implement doesn't feel like something hard to test even in a black box type of development. Programmed randomness is better than no randomness and If I understand correctly foldback can be fixed with oversampling and the closer we get to higher computing power the easier it is. My Ryzen 9500x is pretty good for what I do and I can have most plugins in max oversampling when needed. I would love to learn more about it. Thank you for your answer you are awesome. And I believe that more people would get interested in understanding audio if we would have conversation like this.
The hard thing is tolerances. For example that specific api 5500 was just recently fixed due to one of the low end pots wearing out. Had to wait 2 weeks till it was fixed. I could get another 5500 and it sound different with top end more in line with the plug ins. That's why I'm unsure whether the high band in that 5500 was working correctly. It's robots they use to switch the knobs in real time and there has been the odd time they have need recalibrated. It's hard to tell if it's just that unit, the robot or the plugins. That's the downside with analog.. Consistency haha
Yeah oversampling fixes aliasing.. Dependent on the severity of the plugins aliasing but in most cases it puts the aliasing under our audible threshold so it's fine.
I am about to watch this video and in the end I will know wich plugin I buy if any.
🤓🤓
I know you’re planning on buying and selling a bunch of studio gear to shootout - I’d be really interested in how the direct hardware compares to Access Analog also, whether there’s something lost in the transfer of 1’s and 0’s.
Great video by the way - that’s why I’m a AA and UAD user!
It's pretty expensive gear they've got 😅 however still something I'd also like to try out for myself but you never know 🤓 I'd probably need 10x more patrons but I have faith for the future 🙏 see where I am in a years time haha 😅
@@PaulThird Yeah - I hear you, definitely not something for every test. I think just a shootout on one or two choice classic pieces would answer the question - Neve 1073, etc. Something everyone knows the sound of and could pick the differences in pretty easily would be awesome.
When covids over I have agreed to go into a few studios to print gear and stuff so there is a chance dependent on which studios I end up in 🤓
Can't say yet. Nothing like massive. Lesser known studios around the UK at the moment
Hey, I'm late to the party. For me, Pink was the better sounding version of every loop. I can't explain why, but the color of the high end as well as the low-mids is pleasing.
🤓🤓
Digital seems to have problems with the highs. I keep telling that since the early 80‘s ;-)
Whats the CPU load when doing 16xOvS with the 80 on the new killer machine compared to Pink?
It's way better than it was. I'd say it's on par with pink now. I managed 6 at x16 no bother on the i5. It was just UAD I did through the new computer though. Still need to move all the plugins across and install from scratch 😅😅😅
Don’t know If it’s me, but in preview there’s Api (hardware), pink and lindell and after showing the results it’s Api, pink and UAD...
Nah your right. I put the UAD in the blind tests and took out the Lindell but used Lindell for the final blind test at the end. HOFA only allows me compare 3 at a time so I had to be creative haha
@@PaulThird By now you probably should be sponsored by the full version of Hofa 4U+ (40€) so you don’t have to worry about stuff like this again.
Weird topic. I listened the whole thing on my iPhone speakers. And weirdly i could tell which one API was 100% of the time even before paul. I was stunned - I had never done this. Normally I’ll use my Oppo PM-3 and I don’t think I’ve has as much success in guessing as this. Time to change headphones? Has anyone else tried this?
It's wierd I've had it a few times where people have been able to hear differences more on lower quality speakers but when on their main monitoring system those differences go away. Dunno if it's to do the lack of low end and your mainly hearing mids 🤷♂️
@@PaulThird yeah. My thoughts too. I also suspect the distortion of the tiny speakers hypes the difference.
And to think... That's what so many people listen to music on these days haha 😅
After three weeks of intensive comparison between the Hardware API550a Vs UAD I decided just to send it back. Yes, it sounds "better" with some sources, but just a 2% or less. The thing i liked most was the workflow, the fact that you can EQ with your eyes closed and focus really in the sound was nice! Believe me, i was destroyed at the moment DHL did pick up the packet because i'm a big fan of API but man... I hate UAD because of that... If you want to listen my comparison i can share the link. BTW, i also tried with Distorted guitars and the Hardware did the same with the highs! i also thought that the unit was broken or something.. XD
These are the times that just prove how small the differences really are when you find the right plug. You've done the right thing and extensively tested which is what I would do. Thanks for letting me know as I also thought the UAD was personally enough for me not to consider a purchase 🤓
@@PaulThird I have to say that the difference where obvious when i did record with the EQ and afterwards compare with the plugin. But im mostly needed for mixing. If you want to record then i can say: Yes, the hardware is way better and you can notice the difference without doubts. Now.. for mixing you reaaally need good converters because we are going Digital -> Analog, Analog -> Digital. I have Apollo Twin wich is good, but 1: you can't bypass the preamp and 2. The converters are not so good for that matter. Let me know what you think
Unless you have something like Lynx Studio it is not worthy to have analog gear for reamp, you lose all that 3D that in my case API was giving. But if you have a "low cost" (universal apollo) mixing ITB with plugins is just the same as good than send it to an analog gear XD. Try it yourself, buy an API and record some bass, guitars, vocals and then do the comparison.
My aim is to buy burl converters so I don't underestimate to the power of conversion. Most of the guys I know track with hardware and mix with plugins and the odd analog unit. Good conversion can make a ton of difference. I think that's actually the reason why I preferred the mix anolog fairchild more was due to the burls
It's my aim but when that aim would be a reality... Probably never 😂
Hi paul did u miss my comment on the previous video?😢
"Hey paul!! I have a video comparison suggestion
'Acustica crimson' VS 'Vertigo VSM-3 and Vertigo VSC-2 plugin alliance' and they are emulating the same thing, Acustica crimson compressor is the vsc the saturator is vsm
it will be intresting as vsm3 is one of the most popular saturators out there🤓"
🤓🤓
I thought I already replied to it. Mustve not sent.
Can't see it any time soon tbh. Maybe in the future but I did compare the vsc2 to the crimson comp when I using the PA on drums a long time ago and i wasn't impressed with the crimson. One of those hit and miss moments with AA comps. Never tried the saturation side of the crimson. The CPU thing i'd heard from others really put me off. Seemingly it's the worst cpu hog of them all.
@@PaulThird ooo yep even i read the thing about crimson's cpu on gearslutz or somewhere 😶
Yeah it's seemingly a killer 😱
The hardware wins for me but I very much like all of them.
Yeah all options will you give you fantastic results 🤓
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
🤓🤓🤓
Paul: when you type 1 what do you mean? That it sounded the best? Was the best of the remainder? You identified API (your guess) but it never won ... The Lindell sounded too "digital" ... I actually liked the pink - a bit more subdued ... although the UAD was surprisingly strong ... I didn't see (eg hear) a huge difference between the UAD, HW and AA ... which is pretty remarkable - software has come up in the world !
I selected API as the one I thought was the hardware and then 1. Was the one I thought was closest after that 🤓
have the Lindell and love it... the difference is very small.. and in the mix: NOT audible. So I wont even go into a battle. I got the Lindell cheap.. its awesome. Hardware: no more.. The only hardware I use is my soundcards. And with Tukan sumthing I dont even need a summing mixer. Great video Paul!
🤓
The AA gets so much right..... When they get the high harmonic content right they can run into trouble though with Aliasing. So they often have to compromise on the top end harmonics.... Can't really oversample them ..... Also with more extent compression settings.....And the subs aren't usually exactly the tightest. It must be so hard to calibrate The nebula engine.... They do a great job with the eq curves and the sense of analog "space" though.....
UAD gets the snack right and the release times and curves and that kind of thing. Still built for DSP and being lower load... Compromise a little in similar ways as the AA.... Still sounds really dialed in. The Lindell gets a lot right at 16x Oversampling.... But the behaviour... Especially the release curve feels a little bit off. The hardware was somehow just a little rough..... Maybe just didn't sound quite dialed in that particular units sweet spot.... They all sounded pretty good. Thanks for the video.
🤓🤓
UAD sounded awesome. I like the Pink a lot. The Lindell nah
🤓🤓
am i blind or where is the uad in this test?
Vision channel strip
UAD wins for me my dude!
🤓🤓
I really don't agree. Third for me..... But it's still a very strong third. Hardware, then pink, the UAD
Wait what no opinion! I need it!!!! How will I avoid getting ripped off? Come on!! Can u tell me on the DL?
Haha which one did you prefer in the tests?
@@PaulThird oh u tricky son of a b
A like for Stefan.
UAD definitely wins hands down. Followed by Lindell & Acustica. I wish acustica fixed they very high CPU consumption, crash bugs & other things for Mac use.
See I have experienced bug issues with both pink and Lindell. Pink had the frequency pack issue in the 560 eq and Lindell still bugs where it defaults all the time. They fixed the first bugs where it wouldn't save your stepped eq settings but still Always defaults back to constant gain and every time I changed the master fader it was defaulting back to the change I last saved at.
At X8 & x16 Lindell is comparible cpu to pink. For me UAD is the best option if you have UAD hardware. Pink has more tonal varience but huge file sizes, UAD Channel strips use a lot of dsp but at least its seperate from your CPU so your not gonna recieve crash errors and lag whilst using it. Just has that sound out the box. Was very impressed with the UAD 🤓
@@PaulThird Weirdly no aliasing showing up for the Lindell in Plugin Doctor - no change at all between no oversampling and x 16.
@@mattarimusic2545 there is. It's because you are generating a 1k signal. Stick it to 10k. Start boosting with the EQ. Flip it from none to x16 and you'll see the difference. Cleans it up a ton. If you want to see true aliasing in plugin doctor set it 10khz. Tim Petherick taught me that 🤓
@@PaulThird 😮 🤓 wow can see now - what is the UAD doing then?
@@PaulThird hey thanks paul! Yeah true impressed with UAD too. I didn’t know that about checking aliasing at 10k! Will check it out plug-in doctor
mic at 2020?
At that time I was using at2050
The Real API 5500 low end has much more weight, the plugins dont do that, they create different low end, not so nice as the hardware. Also the whole API transformer path gives a nice overall "anti digital" sound even when its not doing any eq, the plugin also cannot do that. Nowdays hardware is mostly about that 3 -5 % difference with software, its expensive but its still that last 3-5% you cant get with software. You can replicate lets say the low end boost of an API5000 with a Pro-Q3 but you will have to "draw" many curves you will never do when you just have the plugin. Thats the thing with hardware, turning a knob on hardware incorporates so much more than just a frequency and a cut or boost, because of all the electronics. There is always a difference between the two and I think its up to the user how much that difference is worth.
I'd argue you've not tried enough plugins to be honest. There are plugins I've compared to the hardware on this channel that are basically identical and actually subjectively better. There are comparsions where I've made blind polls after and the plugins been victorious or the main consensus is that most can't concretely tell which is which.
I do hear the low transformer weight thing in a lot of hardware, but hardware that makes a lot of harmonic distortion. The api 5500 is practically as clean as a plugin. I've ran sweeps through it and it's a very very very clean circuit as is with most modern analog gear these days.
Just cause somethings got transformers in it doesn't mean its got that 'transformer sound'. Especially modern hardware eq's. Stick a source through a la2a you'll get that low transformer weight from the harmonics and whilst true a lot 2a's struggle, there are plugins like TimP's opto 32 that can nail it and actually go further than the hardware.
The low transformer neve thing isn't difficult to get itb. I can get it with the free gsat+. I even set it up as a preset for myself using a neve 1081 as a reference
Honestly, many modern day plugins are way closer than you think, you just need to look in the right places.
@@PaulThird I know, believe me I have all the plugins and some pieces of hardware. I do believe they come super close but with that last 3-5% difference its hard to say what that is. In some occasions software sounds better and in some occasions hardware sounds better. I often find my self using hardware and making results i can almost not recreate with software ( but I really want to because of the recall ) . Sometimes its a bass thing, sometimes its a certain sustain or groove i cant get with software no matter which plugin I use. I am mostly into dance/pop so there's a lot going on in the low regions. Maybe its my converter ( Antelope Goliath Gen 3 ) that adds something, or maybe its proper gain staging with plugins.
@@moreaux36 enjoy paying 3500 dollars more for a perceived 3-5% difference that noone listening to the music cares about or can hear, and even you couldn't pick out in a mix 🤷♂️
I chose the API hardware every single time. The plugins all seemed less dynamic / flat, more muddy, and narrower bandwidth. Its was really obvious to me I couldn't believe it. Its like that extra 5-10%.
Don't really see how though. Api 5500 is just a glorified digital eq really. As clean as any digital eq. Very straight forward curves. No dynamics, no clipping.
There is no reason for the "less dynamics / flat" thing
You could essentially do the api 5500 thing with ProQ3 or any other quality clean digital eq. That's genuinely how clean it is. Stick it through a sweep and there's nothing audible from a harmonic aspect.
What actually makes the 5500 impressive is how close to digital it actually is.. That's what makes it "mastering grade" is its transparency and stereo balance in the analog domain
@@PaulThird I don't know I'm just hearing that on my headphones. It might be the way the transients are handled / harmonics? I do think the access analog converters might be manipulating the sound adding something too possibly or could just be the way the analog equipment reacts isn't as the same as a 1 or 0?
You can use Alex B's nebula.....Pres Colors and Saturation with Pink...to make up the diffrence then your only looking at...maybe...a 2-4% difference not worth the Price API wants for thier gear at that point....
Example
you use....Pre Colors and Saturation with PINK 3 2412 Comp (API 2500) you cant tell the diffence at that point with the actual API 2500
$3800 Unit....
You may need to redo this and add in the Soft Tube version American Classic...that API is fantastic. As for the 5% or less of that extra mojo that analog gives...the fact is, that it needs to be cumulative for there to be a big difference. 1-2 tracks isn't going to make or break anything, but if you are trying to emulate an entire API console in plugins versus a true API, you will lose...because that extra few percent adds up between multiple channels. Of course, we can come close to analog with countless plugins and A/B tests...and tape saturation...etc. It's like 1 against 3...takes a few different plugins together to emulate one piece of analog hardware. Is it worth the thousands of investment nowadays? Nope...because the end destination is less resolution than we are mixing. BUT, if you can afford it, that little extra is nice to have.
I'm not trying to emulate an API console. I'm just proving that you don't need to buy a 3 grand api 5500 or a 550b
@@PaulThird I know...just saying that for 1-2 instances of use, its not going to really make a difference between analog and an emulation...but over the course of many tracks, that little extra that analog gives, will.
But I Come to your channel to hear your opinion.
What would you like to know
I came to realise with these fiew top manufacturers the subtitle differences that we hear can be compensate by using a different settings. No to Lindell's or Brainworx's channels sounds the same and that's by designe. A Q over here, a fiew Hz or dB of sat. over there. But that doesn't mean that you can't get the same quality of sound desin and mix with every channel. That would be stupit. Than we would have like: "My album souunds so good because I know the secret, wich Lindell and Bx channels to use". We would have a channel shootouts. I am saying: a fiew top manufacturers.
I've got a video matching Lindell and acustica with the curves matched as close as physically possible using plugin doctor. Heard the same result regarding Lindell. The bx channels are only different if you utilise TMT. It can be switched on and off. I used the TMT in plugin doctor to ensure that I hard the right curves to match acustica. I took out as much varience as I could.
The curves were matched and levels were spot on. Lindell was set as per manual for hardware which isnt default. Pre's were set default which in manuals state hardware.
In the end I called it muddy, some called it smooth and natural. I can only say what I hear.
In this I did the same but instead of matching curves in plugin doctor i stepped the frequencies to show how each sound in the same settings as the hardware.
It is what it is
@@PaulThird I realy don't care that much. You'r probably right. But it's not something that would prevent me from achieving the same results as with the "better soundig" emulation from other manufacturer in the top 5. I tried most, an it's not that big a difference. May be some need a little more cracking. Even waves with oversampling are compatible which are holding the last place these days and most of the giants of todays sound engineering ate still using them and producing hit records.
I always say there's no right or wrong answers. It's all about what you do with them. It's all subjective at the end of the day. I could say I prefer pink and you do a better job with Lindell.
@@PaulThird you mean: "as close as digitally possible". .. 😉
To my ears, Acustica Pink and UAD are both very good, and close to the hardware. In the test with combined tracks, you can hear that they both have a depth and space that the Lindell lacks.
I thought the 3 plugs were all pretty close tbh. Lindell at x16 is imperative to get the best out of it. For me UAD was the one that just really caught me. I felt a little bit more depth with UAD. And just right out the box. No extra settings or picking the right pre etc. They are all good at their optimum settings and some could argue that pink wasn't at 96khz but I think you could use any 3 of those and get great results. (as long as Lindell is at x16 OS)
Hardware wins.. (as it usually does)
Dunno if the units absolutely spot on though. Those guitars really threw me. Rest was pretty close. Kick was easy to pick out but the hardware has this darkness and I don't know if that's right. For 3 plugins to all have the same high end.. Maybe thats just digital high end for you 🤷♂️
It never does, in actual randomized listening tests. This has been proven time and again.
🤓🤓🤓🤓
Remember to check out my autism channel if you want to learn more about my life 🤓🤓
UAD.
Streaming on line😳
First!!!!!
🤓🤓
Sad. No opinion. This is a huge part of your channel
Is there a reason as to why? I can't remember it was that long ago haha
@@PaulThird LOL
WTF!! Everybody just use what sounds good to you. There’s no winner or loser in these so-called shootouts. They all sound good. By the way the everyday average listener will not care what the hell was used. If it sounds good it is good. All subjective anyway. Keep it moving.
Good, better, worse is subjective to the listener but doesn't change the reality that many prefer different plugins as they tend to sound different.
Doesn't matter if the everyday listener cares as you are the engineer and its up to you to find the tools that give you the sound your client wants. Got to have pride in your work regardless if the average listener doesnt care.
I couldn't give two f**ks if someone could mix an entire record with stock digital plugins. Woopty doo. In a world of hefty competition you are constantly competing in a world of modern engineers with a million tools at their disposal, which means that you have to be more decisive about the tools you are using to get the best results.
Listen to what sound the song needs, what the client wants and use the tools you trust that will do that and move on. Thats why people watch these 'so called shootouts' so it helps in their decision making to choose a certain sonic character or actually not buy into that sound whatsoever.
Absolutely 💯 my brother from another mother?
Plugins sounds good but not the same it has it's own sound people will try hard to make themself believe that plugins will sound the same it will not and cannot it cannot produce what the transformers or capacitors do to the sound plugins are zeros and ones hardware is raw voltage manipulating the sound that gives that nice sound and fatness I use to be all ITB but I went hybrid plugins are good but it cannot surpass hardware which is superior again not saying you cannot have good sound from them it's just some people cannot afford to get hardware and will justify themselves to think plugins are equal sorry to say that .
If that was the case people would be able to hear the difference between a vintage pye compressor and the waves kramer pie.
When given a closely matched blind test on eq's and compressors nearly all engineers crumble to hear the "superior" sound
My helios pye compressor test proved that with over 70% admitting they couldnt choose which was which
Lindell wins because you are able to open lots of them in a single session....
Depends which oversampling setting your using though... X16 is the same cpu as the rest
@@PaulThird 16x oversampling!!! Who uses that? :) To judge a plugin usability is really important...I would use pink for mastering or on buss and lindell all over. Microscopic evaluation on one track with exact settings is ok, but more for curiosity.
Honestly. I touched on it in the previous 2 videos on it. X16 is how you get that comparible sound. For this hardware comparison it was crucial. The reason I know is the Lindell is still buggy so it somehow managed to put the snare back to X8 when I was setting the shootouts up. I was listening thinking.. That snare sounds a bit muddy here. Wonder if I've bypassed the plug by accident.. Nope.. It was the oversampling. Put it back to x16 and the top end of the snare came back.
Even X8 won't stand up to the rest.
Lindell put x16 in for a reason as he states that there are aliasing issues within the plugin. It's more important than what you think in this plugin. To get it to sound closer to the hardware it was modelled on.
In the world we have today where nearly all DAW's offer freezing surely we don't have to sacrifice quality for cpu?
Suppose it depends on if you actually bother about it sounding like the hardware, but is that not the whole selling point of the Plugin.. To recreate the sound of an API 🤔
@@PaulThird I understand your point...in my case I'm looking for something that has that flavor, and I'm happy enough with the approximation we already have...AA and native plugs like Lindell will be the winners in the long run...
You can open lots of vision channels in a single session if you have enough DSP!
🤦🤦🤦
Why can’t you use at least decent files for the comparisons? They’re really horrific. Both in sound, mix, levels and performance. Would love to hear a comparison in a situation where a mix is excellent. It’s like comparing drum kits with a 12 years old amateur behind the kid that can’t play really. Love your channel otherwise.
Ive not used that produce like a pro multitrack for the longest time now. I asked the subscribers whether they wanted in the context of an actual full mix or just the raw stems processed. No bus processing or anything I would add.
Ran a poll and the decision was raw stems as many felt that any extra processing could have an impact on the results and the fairest way to do it was a dry stem mix
Can't win either way being honest 🤷♂️
Dude plugins are awesome! But they will never surpass the actual hardware itself... Now with that said, that doesn't mean you can't mix in the box and get professional radio ready results.. Because you can! Theirs really no right or wrong plugins can sometimes do much more than hardware like they can give you more possibilities..Both have their Pros and Cons..But plugins are not Analog and plugins does not act or behave like analog..The software also doesn't sound exactly the same either even if they are indeed really good recreations plugins of the hardware..This is far more noticeable with the more Higher End gear of course.. Plugins will always have that digital harshness that no one can stand.. Yes you can always simply take care of this problem with another plugin but with the actual hardware you can push things a lot harder or boost areas you normally wouldn't want too because the Analog hardware is much smoother forgiving and musical! It'll literally reward you more often than not unlike the Plugins.. When you push a plugin it'll start to fall apart and sound horrible!.. If you Prefer plugins that's great! But idc what you or anyone says lol Hardware sounds better and will always give you that extra 5 to 10 % that you we're missing in your mixes.
Tbh man there's nothing I could say to you. I could sit you down in a level matched blind test, watch you fail it and then watch you tell me that it doesn't matter right after. You are convinced and that's that.
There is scientifically nothing more musical or smooth about boosting more highs or any frequency for that matter with analog gear compared to a plugin.
I can take that api 5500, match the curves cause I know how to do that now and put out a blind test and there will be no night and day difference. Eq is eq. A clean analog eq boosts the same way as a digital eq when the curves and phase is matched.
I've done countless tests on the channel where the results have shown that the audience can't tell the difference between a plugin and hardware..
PYE compressor, dbx, la2a, ssl, pultec, both manley vari mu shootouts and yes even the most analog of all analog.. A Studer Tape
There is not even a 2% difference in most. And even if it is 2%, it didn't mean it was better.
But I know no matter how many tests I do, how many small nulls I get, how much science I throw at it you wont believe it
Actually no what, let's make a video, I'm gonna take that api 5500, crank it, match the curves with a digital eq and see if you can tell me which is which. Cause I'm telling you the plugin won't fall apart and I'll prove it a null test.
Let's do it, let's have a bit of fun and we'll revisit your claims 🤓
@@PaulThird I've already tried actual blind test and more often than not I was picking actual hardware! Everyone hears things differently and everyone has their own opinions and taste when it comes to anything really.. So your basically stating that every company that still manufacture's all this analog outboard gear for absolutely no reason? theirs clearly a reason why they still make this stuff Lmao it's not just about making money because so many people are still buying the gear and theirs a reason for that too! Like I said plugins will always have digital harshness and they can't be pushed really hard like the hardware or else it will sound like crap! Analog still also does this analog mojo that plugins still can't seem to do not exactly! Specifically the more expensive gear because you normally get what you pay for.. definitely not talking about the cheap stuff.. I've been making music for over 15 years and have tried API.. Universal Audio..Grace Designs..Audient..Neve.. BAE.. Focusrite.. and many more! Like I said plugins are great and we all will continue to use them no matter what but you ain't gonna sit there and tell me that their isn't a difference and to not waste the money.. Plugins aren't a waste of money and either is the gear! I would always recommend for people to try plugins and the gear for yourself and see what they like and prefer! Saying the gear doesn't matter is almost like saying a great AD/DA converters doesn't matter lol.. Plugins will always have a purpose and the analog gear will also still have a purpose no matter what.. Btw these aren't claims buddy these are facts! Your stating your opinions and basically trying to influence people with your video and channel not to buy hardware which is just flat out ridiculous!
Science is science but your gonna believe what you are gonna believe 🤷♂️
If hardware was as night and day as analog owners make out then the top mixers like Serban, joshua & scheps wouldn't be completely itb. They would 100% be using gear for mixing.
10-20 years ago.. Yeah hardware still had the edge.. Now, its just a difference. There is no night and day, there is no magic.
The science proves it all as BS.
Any time I've given the audience a close blind test with plugins and hardware there has never been a win for hardware. Most admit they can't tell which is which in a blind test.
I took a vintage pye compressor. Set that first, printed it then matched loads of tracks by ear using waves kramer pye, built them all up, level matched and gave the audience the accumulation. Over 70% couldn't tell which was which and the other half guessed wrong.
Hardware is built to sound good. I'm not saying it doesn't have a sound but truth is that digital has caught up today. As soon as you get to see behind the curtain of the industry you find very quickly that it's mostly all smoke and mirrors in regards to hardware.
Plugins that model Manley vari mu (twice) , helios pye, 33609, dbx 160a, la2a, ssl gbus, pultec to name a few I've proved can be near identical to hardware and subjectively better.
Once you get behind the science you see how far plugins have come and that is why big mixers are moving more itb of completely itb.
Its not opinion, its happening.
@@PaulThird Bro your literally full of shit! Lmao science hasn't proven jack? 😂😂 Science literally has nothing to do with what people can actually hear with their very own two ears let alone this conversation ...Btw never said their was a night and day difference between the two! because their isn't but their most certainly is a difference and that's just facts! Any experienced engineer would agree and already has just start watching other channels that own and have analog gear and plugins! You clearly don't know what the f*** your talking about.. Shits literally sad that your trying to influence people not to waste their hard earned money on the hardware smh absolutely ridiculous and just straight up laughable..Your probably one of those guys that can't afford the hardware and that's why you favor the plugins 😂😂 just because your renting or borrowing and showing the gear on your channel doesn't mean you can afford it.. You can post whatever you want and that's fine but I most definitely don't appreciate when someone literally will try to stir people in the wrong direction instead of encouraging them to try things out for themselves and make their own decisions.. If plugins we're so much better than the actual hardware then hardware would no longer exist! Plan and simple there would be no market for that stuff but that's clearly not the case.