These two are more similar than most hardware/plugin comparison results I have seen. VERY close. The one common factor I have observed is that in almost all cases, the plugin needs a MAAG EQ 20k “air band” boost of about 3 or 4db in order to match the open top end of the hardware. High end frequency “cramping” is occurring in a lot of cases with the plugins. Great comparison video! 😎👍👍
I love you doing these comparisons as well. It really helps to understand where the plug-ins and hardware match, and where they differ. It helps to tune my ears
I have the hardware SPL PQ. I've been contemplating selling it, thinking the plugin route is the more sensible cost effective route. This comparison has me rethinking that and I'm listening on crap speakers of my TV. I preferred the hardware each time for all the usual hardware/plugin reasons. More punch, sweeter highs, etc. One thing this video is missing is showing the proportional q mode. I tend to use that mode on each band when sweetening up a track going into constant q when I need precision. Constant q mode is so clean I usually have a hard time hearing what I'm changing. I have to go a little extreme and then pull back.
Another great comparison, thank you. Kinda makes you wonder why some were saying it was nothing alike and just another reskin when it came out. My fav EQ plugin, adds a punchy almost HiFi forwardness. I also bought the MusEQ recently based on your recommendation but not had much chance to play with it yet. EQ's definitely seem to be the closest emulations.
Because these people just regurgitate stuff they've seen read or heard without ever testing for themselves. That's where our channels different we go by facts we source ourselves.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio And it is very much appreciated. Obviously most of us will never have access to the hardware to do a comparison like this, so when you see people saying such things when they have compared to their own hardware it makes you wonder how close it really is. Thanks again!
@@Lewis_Emblack I want my hardware to win night and day. It cost me a lot of money. To think a £100 plugin can match it is heartbreaking. But this is a testament to the plugin being so good.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I can imagine! I got it for £30 too. It, along with the Iron and the Fusion, is at the top of the main pieces of hardware I would want if I were to ever have the money, but this (along with your comparisons of the others to a lesser extent) has thankfully tempered my gear lust for now, though the differences would still definitely be worth it in your situation. I wonder if SPL are making more from the sales of the plugin or the units at this point. Can you ever see the ITB world catching up to hardware completely, considering the improvements over the last 10 years?
Both sound very good. On the acoustic guitar example, it felt like the plugin was doing a lot more when it kicked in. I would say maybe there is generally a bit more weight with the hardware, but that tracks with my experience of most hardware vs software examples. I know "weight" is a nebulous description but words often fail to describe what we think we're hearing. Thanks for these useful comparisons.
I think in general hardware has more depth, 3d imaging, rounder sound and more weight. But Software is so close😊 i have plugin alliance Subscription so i am using the PQ a lot too! For saturation I usually prefer HW by far! But for EQ’s not sure if the price differences are worth it unless for Mastering which only the best works! Cheers and thanks!
@@FrederickRincon yea i agree! When they compare SW VS HW they also should use the same signal route and conversions as they also add to the signal aswell even The cabling! I think SW will be even closer! Cheers
There was something in it, I agree. However, sometimes the thing that sounds special .. is inaccuracy and variance. One forum review by a mastering engineer I read said that, in linked mode, some of the controls were out by 10hz between channels. SPL readily admitted this was the limits of the automated control and suggested setting controls unlinked via an analyser when critical matching was needed.. He sent it back, disappointed that it didn't have the accuracy .. despite really loving the sound. Of course the plugin will be perfectly accurate and matching and therefore. Not create differences between left and right, which can fool the brain into hearing more space, real life in the sound. It would be easy to introduce such variance in the plugin though...
4:09 - Headroom issues on the plugin vs hardware --detected some digital distortion on the plugin. That and the hardware's width/image sounded slightly better.
I love hardware but in this case I like the software of Plugin Alliance as a matter of fact I bought it yesterday for 30 pounds and I'm going to give it a try on a mix today thanks for sharing
The hardware is exactly what it is. The high frequencies a round instead of hifi airy like the plug-in. What’s cool about the plug-in though is what it does to the stereo image
The Plugin sounds like the "air" around each instrument has been transposed down an octave. It's like the *clarity and ambience* of each sound is 12 semitones higher on the hardware (consistent with reality). The Plugin has a slightly dull veil over each frequency band (not a bad sound, but not great either).
@@KimberKustom You know what, I am going to do a blind test this week and I am going to post the video with audio examples to hardware and plugin. I am then going to ask you to tell me which one is which. And if you don't get it right every time, you'll look a little bit silly now won't you. I can guarantee you won't be back and this will be the last we see of you. Come put your money where you mouth is.
@KimberKustom I singled you out because you are rude and you've been commenting to others saying they need to get their ears checked. Let's see if it is in fact you that needs to get their ears checked. How funny would it be if you picked the plugin every time or even if it was 50/50. I know you wouldn't do it because you don't truly believe it's as clear and obvious as you think. If you did, you wouldn't be winging that I'm singling you out. You'd be up for the challenge. If you actually watched my conclusion, I clearly say there is a difference. I want my hardware to win. But I say in a blind test you'd find it hard to pick the analogue out. You think that's rubbish. Well let's see.
@KimberKustom telling someone they need to get their ears checked is rude. That's why I called you out. I dislike rudeness and bullying of other users of the Internet from behind a keyboard. If you watch thus video from 6 minutes on you'll hear me say there are clear differences but you'll be hard pushed to tell them apart in a blind test. If you don't think this is true. Take part in the challenge. Once uploaded I will let you know.
awesome test and ive been using the plugin more. and just for the record i pay 10 bucks a month and get all the plugin alliance stuff and after a year iget to pickout 3 to won. for 10 bucks and the quality you get from these tools to me its a no brainer. and seeing a test like this.....dang...again for a guy at home 10 bucks a month....i think its the best deal you can get for the best quality and thier nice to your cpu i dont think you can go wrong
I;m with most of the comments here too, it's an impressive plugin, and while i acknowledge, I don't think i would immediately pick these out in a blind test but on these comparisons with headphones on u can certainly pick up that the hardware has a bit more body to it, more depth and dimension to it...
On my apple ears it pretty noticeable difference, the hardware sounds that more detailed on drums as specifically I’d say. The guitar via the plugin is stunning… wish it would match more though 😊
11 місяців тому
Paul, what is your experience with passive equalizers? Have you tried SPL Passeq? I’m really thinking about getting one because it makes more sense to use hardware if it’s passive.
I had a PassEQ for a little while and liked it. I ended up swapping it for the PQ as it gave me more options. I have an AudioTales 1954 Passive EQ in my mastering chain now and it's one of the best EQs I own. It's really something special. Check my latest video out. Shows you how good it is.
I picked up this plug-in last week for $30 on sale, great deal. I heard the hardware version is $8,000, so I am totally good with the $30 plug-in version.
Incredible, thanks for this. I'm really amazed at the definition in the plugin. I recently compared Acustica Ivory 5 to PA SPL PQ - different sounds but both incredible plugins - if you could do a shootout with those that would be interesting (for me at least)
Great vid. Surprised how close they, even more awesome given the 200x price (when it's on sale for 30 like it is right now). Hardware maybe a little more micro dynamic, groovier and extended lows, and highs extended. Could just be imagining as I'm looking though. Damn the plugin sounds good. Still a place for the hardware but for what the plugin costs and the fact that you can play to its strength/s, pretty good.
Thanks for video. Yeah 3D image is better in Hardware. I feel like Plug in is little bit woolly in the low end. But if I change the frequency on that particular area I could probably get even closer and cleaner. But it is great that you set both of them to same parameters. Same goes for high FQ but only on same examples. Acoustic guitar was little bit sharp on VST. Thanks again.
very very close.. I think the plugin is a little bit more open at the high frequency. Hardware is round at high freq. I like the plugin sound, of course for the lower price 😁👍🏻👍🏻
The hardware just sounds more alive/fresh and the plugin sounds more flat/stale in comparison. The plugin (like near all plugins) seems to have this stale sounding build up around 900Hz to 3KHz.
Damn it's really close for the most part! I think the hardware is a bit smoother sounding and transients are more defined. The plugin seems to smear the transients very slightly. I think in the trailer music example the differences in depth and clarity are pretty damn noticeable but the rest would be hard to tell the difference in a blind test. I don't think the the price difference is warranted. I could see why it would be worth having for mastering though. A lot of plugins tend to have those very small differences that add up so it ends up being a pretty noticeable difference in the finished product.
This is why I love your channel. You just go by ok how does it sound rather than using plugin doctors and alias meters or complaining/throwing a tantrum because a plugin has some graphics to show hardware screws and scratches .
The differences are most noticeable with the orchestral music. The lows don't extend as much. With the other stuff, the difference is almost negligible.
The hardware stands out as having a depth to it almost as if it is hugging the audio. I am slowly moving away from the in the box only, just 2 more bits of hardware and my needs are complete.
I thought the differences were pretty stark. The hardware seems to have great bit of detail in the LMF through MHF frequency range whereas the plugin seems to almost ignore (if not, muddle) this range. The plugin's Hi frequency boost seems hyped up to the point that it utterly destroys the harmonics within and around the bell curve with a sort of shrill noise whereas the hardware does a great job of letting the selected Hi frequency through without becoming shrill or harsh. They actually do not sound similar to me at all. I have demoed the plugin, and I honestly don't think that it's worth anywhere near $350+tax.
hardware sounds more firm, more wide also, bass are more solid, and mids seems are alittle smoothed out or dry... and this is noticiable on youtube so in the original files should be lot more, cheers!
Hardware has better separation, the plugin is slightly muddy & congested. I wonder if the plugin can be tweaked to sound better I.e. plugin not having the exact same settings as the hardware?
Unlike the Museq which sounded very similar to the hardware. This sounded more plasticy like it had cling wrap over the sound. It was still quite good but didn't represent the intention of the mix as well.
Not here to troll anyone. I would just like the know the point of hardware vs software shootouts. All I care about is if it sounds good. With a price tag that's 20x that of the plugin or even 200x when on sale, this isn't really designed to help you choose between the two.
All you care about is if it sounds good. What a lot of other people are interested in is how well it compares to the real thing. The video isn't designed for helping you choose. I can tell you now nobody looking to buy the hardware watched this video and thought I'll just get the plugin instead. No matter how close they are. This video helps the people who have no intention of paying £5500 for an EQ see just how close they can get with a $99 plugin. It interesting for people as much as it is interesting for me as someone that uses both.
I think there is a big difference. On every source the hardware sounds 'perfect'. You don't hear a 'processed' sound at all. With the plugin you hear proccesing on all the examples. It sounds like something is taken out, which breaks up the sound into audible frequentie bands. You may need trained ears to hear it. But this is the reason why engineers pay thousands of dollars more for the hardware. Thinking of buying the SPL hardware myself after seeing this video's 🤔
Another fantastic comparison. Super close but that analog hardware wins again with image and 3dness. I'm really starting to drink the koolaid now that my monitoring is set up and dialed in. I can hear that difference and it adds up.
... everyone knows that the experience being had at Camden Palace is going to be 100 times more special. I'd probably bet that also applies sonically too ..but it would have to be a guess (only ever set up at O2, never been at a gig).
the hardware sounds a little slower to me. Especially the highs sound more precise in the plugin, which can be a good or bad thing so.. both are good, but if you factor in the price and flexibility there is no competition for the plugin IMHO. I think if you added a little more on the low end and less on the highs with the plugin you have matched them pretty closely
hmm 🤔 I can hear the difference very well on my Studio Monitoring.. the hardware is softer and much more 3d more depth more width.. What I would be interested in.. SPL do the mic pre amp which has 120 volt technology in it, the Crescendo Duo v2.. it also has a pad circuit so I could also feed it with a line level signal.. How would the plugin sound if you put the plugin through it? Crescendo duo v2 would send.. and then make the comparison to the hardware PQ.. 🤔 Does the 3D sound come through the pre amp...? would be really interesting... My idea is to get a cheaper alternative to the hardware PQ EQ, which costs around 6500.- for me. and if I take the SPL PQ plugin with an SPL Crescendo duo v2 which also has the 120 volt technology in it.. it would cost 2250.- plus the plugin is still around 69.- in the sale... so massively cheap.. But the comparison would be really interesting as to how this compilation would sound with the hardware PQ..? 🤔🤗
@burns46824 3 I use and love are the Hendy Amps Michelangelo EQ, AudioTales 1951/1954 combo and the Buzz Audio REQ 2.2. These are 3 exceptionally sounding EQs
Thank you very much for the video; The resemblance is incredible, I share your comments 100%. I'm impressed, because for example when you compared the Elysia Musseq for me the difference was noticeable, be it that 5% or whatever, for me it was very noticeable; On the other hand, in this case it is almost a matter of taste,... Basically, that margin of "3D" that the hardware has. Just a question, did you use the equalizer only in the master or in buses, tracks? Thanks,
The EQ was put in as an insert, so this could be down to conversion etc. I 100% agree, I can't say I like one more than the other. I like them both equally.
I just tried the Spl PQ Plugin against the MUSEQ Plugin and ,nothing scientific but I found the PQ to sound very Hard and edgy sounding in the top end and in general actually . the MUSEQ sounded well ,more musical ,for a plugin .could just be me tho !
For me, the HW is much better, 3D-ish with a lot of depth, I could not hear this with the plugin. Nevertheless Brainworx isclose to the overall sound of the PQ. Congratulation to that. But nevertheless I'd choose the hw
It´s always same them item......the frequency edges of all plugins are the problems, the very highs and the very low ones. As Dirk Ulrich already said. The industry built plugins from hardware to make the customer hot to get the hardware finally. It´s possible to match perfectly as Relab Development shows and sometimes softube, but on the other hand nobody would buy hardware again. This plugin does have the same issue.
I like that plugins are only 95% there. It keeps analogue relevant for those who want that extra 5%. I often fall in love with the plugin and subsequently buy the hardware. This recently happened to me with the blackbox HG2
The difference is huge! Just listen in headphones - you'll notice even with eyes closed. Simply put - hardware makes sound 3d, plugin doing just eq work, but it's very 2d, flat
same old plugin differences, less depth, hardware is very obviously more 3d sounding to my ears. this seems to be the same findings i have with nearly all plugins.. saying that for the price difference plus the average listener wouldn't even be able to tell.. i'll stick with plugins. sold all my hardware years ago..
Man I was thinking the opposite! Hah. I hear the hardware as more open and 3d and the plugin as a little hollow, darker and centered image set back a bit. It's such a small amount though. At least on my setup. So close.
Hi! First of all big thanks for the time and effort put into making this kind of content. As a ME who only worked ITB until now for financial reasons (first build the studio, then bought the high grade speakers) and thinking now only getting to the point of getting some hardware so your videos are pretty handy I was yet wondering a few things. Could you maybe make some A B X videos where we first don't know what is playing to avoid being psychologically tricked into thinking to hear things? Also to what degree does the conversion play a role? Last thing i was wondering was if the differences heard on youtube might be even stronger when heard in the studio on non compressed audio, or phrased differenty, how much does the conversion/streaming alter the quality of the sonic results. Thank you again and keep them coming :)
Yes all of the above is something I want to start implementing. I am going to start hosting the audio on our website on an A/B player for blind test then results at the bottom of the page. This way you can flick from A to B and hear the full quality wav without youtube conversion. Both plugin and hardware are routed out to the converters.
These two are more similar than most hardware/plugin comparison results I have seen. VERY close.
The one common factor I have observed is that in almost all cases, the plugin needs a MAAG EQ 20k “air band” boost of about 3 or 4db in order to match the open top end of the hardware.
High end frequency “cramping” is occurring in a lot of cases with the plugins.
Great comparison video! 😎👍👍
I concur, and the low end is tighter on the hardware
I love you doing these comparisons as well. It really helps to understand where the plug-ins and hardware match, and where they differ. It helps to tune my ears
I have the hardware SPL PQ. I've been contemplating selling it, thinking the plugin route is the more sensible cost effective route. This comparison has me rethinking that and I'm listening on crap speakers of my TV. I preferred the hardware each time for all the usual hardware/plugin reasons. More punch, sweeter highs, etc. One thing this video is missing is showing the proportional q mode. I tend to use that mode on each band when sweetening up a track going into constant q when I need precision. Constant q mode is so clean I usually have a hard time hearing what I'm changing. I have to go a little extreme and then pull back.
It's really close to its hardware counterpart. I even liked it more on acc guitar. Well done.
Same!
Another great comparison, thank you. Kinda makes you wonder why some were saying it was nothing alike and just another reskin when it came out. My fav EQ plugin, adds a punchy almost HiFi forwardness. I also bought the MusEQ recently based on your recommendation but not had much chance to play with it yet. EQ's definitely seem to be the closest emulations.
Because these people just regurgitate stuff they've seen read or heard without ever testing for themselves. That's where our channels different we go by facts we source ourselves.
We know you’re the best. If the MuseQ review didn’t give that away already
@@AudioAnimalsStudio And it is very much appreciated. Obviously most of us will never have access to the hardware to do a comparison like this, so when you see people saying such things when they have compared to their own hardware it makes you wonder how close it really is. Thanks again!
@@Lewis_Emblack I want my hardware to win night and day. It cost me a lot of money. To think a £100 plugin can match it is heartbreaking. But this is a testament to the plugin being so good.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I can imagine! I got it for £30 too. It, along with the Iron and the Fusion, is at the top of the main pieces of hardware I would want if I were to ever have the money, but this (along with your comparisons of the others to a lesser extent) has thankfully tempered my gear lust for now, though the differences would still definitely be worth it in your situation. I wonder if SPL are making more from the sales of the plugin or the units at this point.
Can you ever see the ITB world catching up to hardware completely, considering the improvements over the last 10 years?
Both sound very good. On the acoustic guitar example, it felt like the plugin was doing a lot more when it kicked in. I would say maybe there is generally a bit more weight with the hardware, but that tracks with my experience of most hardware vs software examples. I know "weight" is a nebulous description but words often fail to describe what we think we're hearing. Thanks for these useful comparisons.
I think in general hardware has more depth, 3d imaging, rounder sound and more weight. But Software is so close😊 i have plugin alliance Subscription so i am using the PQ a lot too! For saturation I usually prefer HW by far! But for EQ’s not sure if the price differences are worth it unless for Mastering which only the best works! Cheers and thanks!
I agree, can hear a serious difference at what you mentioned.The question is, what if you put the plugin thru external Lundahl audio transformers..
@@FrederickRincon yea i agree! When they compare SW VS HW they also should use the same signal route and conversions as they also add to the signal aswell even The cabling! I think SW will be even closer! Cheers
There was something in it, I agree.
However, sometimes the thing that sounds special .. is inaccuracy and variance.
One forum review by a mastering engineer I read said that, in linked mode, some of the controls were out by 10hz between channels. SPL readily admitted this was the limits of the automated control and suggested setting controls unlinked via an analyser when critical matching was needed..
He sent it back, disappointed that it didn't have the accuracy .. despite really loving the sound.
Of course the plugin will be perfectly accurate and matching and therefore. Not create differences between left and right, which can fool the brain into hearing more space, real life in the sound.
It would be easy to introduce such variance in the plugin though...
4:09 - Headroom issues on the plugin vs hardware --detected some digital distortion on the plugin.
That and the hardware's width/image sounded slightly better.
I love hardware but in this case I like the software of Plugin Alliance as a matter of fact I bought it yesterday for 30 pounds and I'm going to give it a try on a mix today thanks for sharing
The hardware is exactly what it is. The high frequencies a round instead of hifi airy like the plug-in. What’s cool about the plug-in though is what it does to the stereo image
The Plugin sounds like the "air" around each instrument has been transposed down an octave.
It's like the *clarity and ambience* of each sound is 12 semitones higher on the hardware (consistent with reality).
The Plugin has a slightly dull veil over each frequency band (not a bad sound, but not great either).
Haha Kimber that comment cracked me up. You really don't know me one bit do you.
@@KimberKustom You know what, I am going to do a blind test this week and I am going to post the video with audio examples to hardware and plugin. I am then going to ask you to tell me which one is which. And if you don't get it right every time, you'll look a little bit silly now won't you. I can guarantee you won't be back and this will be the last we see of you. Come put your money where you mouth is.
@KimberKustom I singled you out because you are rude and you've been commenting to others saying they need to get their ears checked. Let's see if it is in fact you that needs to get their ears checked. How funny would it be if you picked the plugin every time or even if it was 50/50. I know you wouldn't do it because you don't truly believe it's as clear and obvious as you think. If you did, you wouldn't be winging that I'm singling you out. You'd be up for the challenge.
If you actually watched my conclusion, I clearly say there is a difference. I want my hardware to win. But I say in a blind test you'd find it hard to pick the analogue out. You think that's rubbish. Well let's see.
@KimberKustom telling someone they need to get their ears checked is rude. That's why I called you out. I dislike rudeness and bullying of other users of the Internet from behind a keyboard.
If you watch thus video from 6 minutes on you'll hear me say there are clear differences but you'll be hard pushed to tell them apart in a blind test. If you don't think this is true. Take part in the challenge. Once uploaded I will let you know.
@@KimberKustom Does it look like he needs freebies from PA ? lol
awesome test and ive been using the plugin more. and just for the record i pay 10 bucks a month and get all the plugin alliance stuff and after a year iget to pickout 3 to won. for 10 bucks and the quality you get from these tools to me its a no brainer. and seeing a test like this.....dang...again for a guy at home 10 bucks a month....i think its the best deal you can get for the best quality and thier nice to your cpu i dont think you can go wrong
I;m with most of the comments here too, it's an impressive plugin, and while i acknowledge, I don't think i would immediately pick these out in a blind test but on these comparisons with headphones on u can certainly pick up that the hardware has a bit more body to it, more depth and dimension to it...
Which on is up and which one down ?
On my apple ears it pretty noticeable difference, the hardware sounds that more detailed on drums as specifically I’d say. The guitar via the plugin is stunning… wish it would match more though 😊
Paul, what is your experience with passive equalizers? Have you tried SPL Passeq? I’m really thinking about getting one because it makes more sense to use hardware if it’s passive.
I had a PassEQ for a little while and liked it. I ended up swapping it for the PQ as it gave me more options. I have an AudioTales 1954 Passive EQ in my mastering chain now and it's one of the best EQs I own. It's really something special. Check my latest video out. Shows you how good it is.
I picked up this plug-in last week for $30 on sale, great deal. I heard the hardware version is $8,000, so I am totally good with the $30 plug-in version.
Incredible, thanks for this. I'm really amazed at the definition in the plugin. I recently compared Acustica Ivory 5 to PA SPL PQ - different sounds but both incredible plugins - if you could do a shootout with those that would be interesting (for me at least)
Great vid. Surprised how close they, even more awesome given the 200x price (when it's on sale for 30 like it is right now). Hardware maybe a little more micro dynamic, groovier and extended lows, and highs extended. Could just be imagining as I'm looking though. Damn the plugin sounds good. Still a place for the hardware but for what the plugin costs and the fact that you can play to its strength/s, pretty good.
Thanks for video. Yeah 3D image is better in Hardware. I feel like Plug in is little bit woolly in the low end. But if I change the frequency on that particular area I could probably get even closer and cleaner. But it is great that you set both of them to same parameters. Same goes for high FQ but only on same examples. Acoustic guitar was little bit sharp on VST. Thanks again.
3D,image lol.... It's not supposed to mess with the stereo field, in my book that's a downside of the hardware
I dont think its close at all...the hardware sounds incredible...the space around the instruments come to life
Plugin sounds better. Sorry. In this case
When using the plugin, do you use the tmt or do you just switch it to digital and go from there?
very very close..
I think the plugin is a little bit more open at the high frequency.
Hardware is round at high freq.
I like the plugin sound,
of course for the lower price 😁👍🏻👍🏻
The hardware just sounds more alive/fresh and the plugin sounds more flat/stale in comparison. The plugin (like near all plugins) seems to have this stale sounding build up around 900Hz to 3KHz.
Damn it's really close for the most part! I think the hardware is a bit smoother sounding and transients are more defined. The plugin seems to smear the transients very slightly. I think in the trailer music example the differences in depth and clarity are pretty damn noticeable but the rest would be hard to tell the difference in a blind test. I don't think the the price difference is warranted. I could see why it would be worth having for mastering though. A lot of plugins tend to have those very small differences that add up so it ends up being a pretty noticeable difference in the finished product.
I'd like to hear direct comparison between HW PQ and Passeq. By searching youtube the PQ sounds sweeter.
I think random blind comparison is a must to objectively comparing the sound..
This is why I love your channel. You just go by ok how does it sound rather than using plugin doctors and alias meters or complaining/throwing a tantrum because a plugin has some graphics to show hardware screws and scratches .
@angelus1417 that's what's important. How does it sound. Do we perceive them as similar. Are there any major audible differences.
The differences are most noticeable with the orchestral music. The lows don't extend as much. With the other stuff, the difference is almost negligible.
The hardware stands out as having a depth to it almost as if it is hugging the audio. I am slowly moving away from the in the box only, just 2 more bits of hardware and my needs are complete.
I thought the differences were pretty stark. The hardware seems to have great bit of detail in the LMF through MHF frequency range whereas the plugin seems to almost ignore (if not, muddle) this range. The plugin's Hi frequency boost seems hyped up to the point that it utterly destroys the harmonics within and around the bell curve with a sort of shrill noise whereas the hardware does a great job of letting the selected Hi frequency through without becoming shrill or harsh. They actually do not sound similar to me at all. I have demoed the plugin, and I honestly don't think that it's worth anywhere near $350+tax.
definitely a better stereo field on the hardware and less "smearing" of frequencies
hardware sounds more firm, more wide also, bass are more solid, and mids seems are alittle smoothed out or dry... and this is noticiable on youtube so in the original files should be lot more, cheers!
Hardware has better separation, the plugin is slightly muddy & congested. I wonder if the plugin can be tweaked to sound better I.e. plugin not having the exact same settings as the hardware?
Unlike the Museq which sounded very similar to the hardware. This sounded more plasticy like it had cling wrap over the sound. It was still quite good but didn't represent the intention of the mix as well.
Not at all.
Not here to troll anyone. I would just like the know the point of hardware vs software shootouts. All I care about is if it sounds good. With a price tag that's 20x that of the plugin or even 200x when on sale, this isn't really designed to help you choose between the two.
All you care about is if it sounds good. What a lot of other people are interested in is how well it compares to the real thing. The video isn't designed for helping you choose. I can tell you now nobody looking to buy the hardware watched this video and thought I'll just get the plugin instead. No matter how close they are. This video helps the people who have no intention of paying £5500 for an EQ see just how close they can get with a $99 plugin. It interesting for people as much as it is interesting for me as someone that uses both.
I think there is a big difference. On every source the hardware sounds 'perfect'. You don't hear a 'processed' sound at all. With the plugin you hear proccesing on all the examples. It sounds like something is taken out, which breaks up the sound into audible frequentie bands. You may need trained ears to hear it. But this is the reason why engineers pay thousands of dollars more for the hardware. Thinking of buying the SPL hardware myself after seeing this video's 🤔
That's the extra 5% we pay for. That 5% over 20 pieces of high end equipment adds up to a lot.
Couldn't disagree more, we are hearing different videos, lol...
@@massivebeatzz how would you describe the difference between the hardware and the plugin?
Another fantastic comparison. Super close but that analog hardware wins again with image and 3dness. I'm really starting to drink the koolaid now that my monitoring is set up and dialed in. I can hear that difference and it adds up.
Yesss. Come to the dark side! We have analog 😈
The plugin sounds like you're at Camden Palace the Hardware sounds like you're at the O2 ;)
... everyone knows that the experience being had at Camden Palace is going to be 100 times more special. I'd probably bet that also applies sonically too ..but it would have to be a guess (only ever set up at O2, never been at a gig).
Get the plugin and an imager 😂 🔥 wow ! Very close the plugin didn't win on the guitar but damn what a good emulation 🔥
YESS, been waiting for this one.
coming back and listening again on ex machina pulsars... and I have to say, the plugin sounds better lmao! sell that SPL and get something else! haha
No never. Do a blind test and see if the results are the same. If you still feel the plugin sounds better, pick the plugin up.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I did, and I literally just bought the plugin haha
@@NRVE8 thats a win for you
the hardware sounds a little slower to me. Especially the highs sound more precise in the plugin, which can be a good or bad thing so.. both are good, but if you factor in the price and flexibility there is no competition for the plugin IMHO. I think if you added a little more on the low end and less on the highs with the plugin you have matched them pretty closely
Analog is still king!
100%
hmm 🤔 I can hear the difference very well on my Studio Monitoring..
the hardware is softer and much more 3d more depth more width..
What I would be interested in.. SPL do the mic pre amp which has 120 volt technology in it, the Crescendo Duo v2.. it also has a pad circuit so I could also feed it with a line level signal..
How would the plugin sound if you put the plugin through it?
Crescendo duo v2 would send..
and then make the comparison to the hardware PQ.. 🤔
Does the 3D sound come through the pre amp...? would be really interesting...
My idea is to get a cheaper alternative to the hardware PQ EQ, which costs around 6500.- for me.
and if I take the SPL PQ plugin with an SPL Crescendo duo v2 which also has the 120 volt technology in it.. it would cost 2250.- plus the plugin is still around 69.- in the sale...
so massively cheap..
But the comparison would be really interesting as to how this compilation would sound with the hardware PQ..? 🤔🤗
I had one of these EQs for a while. Hated it. Switched to an Elysia MusEQ...hated that, too.
@burns46824 did you end up finding one you liked?
@@AudioAnimalsStudio No. For tracking I like the Great River. Haven’t found a mastering EQ I like yet.
I’m all ears if you have suggestions. I record and mix on analog tape.
@burns46824 3 I use and love are the Hendy Amps Michelangelo EQ, AudioTales 1951/1954 combo and the Buzz Audio REQ 2.2. These are 3 exceptionally sounding EQs
@@AudioAnimalsStudio which would you choose of the three if you were working exclusively with analog tape?
Thank you very much for the video; The resemblance is incredible, I share your comments 100%. I'm impressed, because for example when you compared the Elysia Musseq for me the difference was noticeable, be it that 5% or whatever, for me it was very noticeable; On the other hand, in this case it is almost a matter of taste,... Basically, that margin of "3D" that the hardware has. Just a question, did you use the equalizer only in the master or in buses, tracks? Thanks,
The EQ was put in as an insert, so this could be down to conversion etc. I 100% agree, I can't say I like one more than the other. I like them both equally.
great !
I just tried the Spl PQ Plugin against the MUSEQ Plugin and ,nothing scientific but I found the PQ to sound very Hard and edgy sounding in the top end and in general actually . the MUSEQ sounded well ,more musical ,for a plugin .could just be me tho !
The PQ I find is a lot more aggressive EQ. Using it in 1/4 mode is a more pleasing way to use it.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio yea it does seem very aggressive , it does compare well to the hardware tho ,probably great on certain things like piano
@@Somebodysomewhere2 that's why you need the Buzz REQ 2.2 to pair with it.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio there can be only one !
@Stu Emerson I have 7 EQs in my chain. You mean to say 6 have to go back
For me, the HW is much better, 3D-ish with a lot of depth, I could not hear this with the plugin. Nevertheless Brainworx isclose to the overall sound of the PQ. Congratulation to that. But nevertheless I'd choose the hw
exactly 3d image, that's what I wanted to say
Great minds think alike
It´s always same them item......the frequency edges of all plugins are the problems, the very highs and the very low ones. As Dirk Ulrich already said. The industry built plugins from hardware to make the customer hot to get the hardware finally. It´s possible to match perfectly as Relab Development shows and sometimes softube, but on the other hand nobody would buy hardware again. This plugin does have the same issue.
I like that plugins are only 95% there. It keeps analogue relevant for those who want that extra 5%. I often fall in love with the plugin and subsequently buy the hardware. This recently happened to me with the blackbox HG2
Another absolute destruction for the 4 grand (or whatever it is) bit of kit… Who’d of thought
You can hear the hardware outshine the plugin on the guitar.
The difference is huge! Just listen in headphones - you'll notice even with eyes closed. Simply put - hardware makes sound 3d, plugin doing just eq work, but it's very 2d, flat
I don't want 3D from an EQ. Sorry. That's why plug-in won.
same old plugin differences, less depth, hardware is very obviously more 3d sounding to my ears. this seems to be the same findings i have with nearly all plugins.. saying that for the price difference plus the average listener wouldn't even be able to tell.. i'll stick with plugins. sold all my hardware years ago..
Software sounds so much "beh er" :)
The hardware got more 3D and less agressivity.
Hardware sounds open, plugin sounds closed.
in my opinion the plugin is a little bit more "opened/clearer" in the highs than the hardware ... 🤔
Man I was thinking the opposite! Hah. I hear the hardware as more open and 3d and the plugin as a little hollow, darker and centered image set back a bit. It's such a small amount though. At least on my setup. So close.
Yeap
Plugin sounds cheap and harsh! Wtf. Not even close.
U need better ears 😅😅
@@massivebeatzz Haha you’re funny. It’s so obviously clear that you can’t even hear the difference.
The plugin sounds lifeless.
Not even close to hardware lol
Hi! First of all big thanks for the time and effort put into making this kind of content.
As a ME who only worked ITB until now for financial reasons (first build the studio, then bought the high grade speakers) and thinking now only getting to the point of getting some hardware so your videos are pretty handy
I was yet wondering a few things.
Could you maybe make some A B X videos where we first don't know what is playing to avoid being psychologically tricked into thinking to hear things?
Also to what degree does the conversion play a role?
Last thing i was wondering was if the differences heard on youtube might be even stronger when heard in the studio on non compressed audio, or phrased differenty, how much does the conversion/streaming alter the quality of the sonic results.
Thank you again and keep them coming :)
Yes all of the above is something I want to start implementing. I am going to start hosting the audio on our website on an A/B player for blind test then results at the bottom of the page. This way you can flick from A to B and hear the full quality wav without youtube conversion.
Both plugin and hardware are routed out to the converters.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio thank you for the answer and the attention to detail!
looking forward!