Didn't make sense to ignore the extra Lindell saturation settings when working with that. They sounded similar but different overall. The saturation sounded very different. I like that the Lindell had so many more options.... I'd much rather see something more comprehensive with both units and what they can do.... Rather than trying to replicate settings. That would tell us much more about which unit was right for us.
Got the Lindell 80 for £30 and this video confirms that I don't need to consider the UAD. Lindell 80 is now on every one of my channels and the Lindell Bus also on my stereo bus (if indeed the music needs that kind of treatment). When the other Lindell console emulations are on sale, I'll be getting those I think. Best £30 I've spent on plugins. Thanks
The Lindell on the vocals was awesome. Well on everything. The UA sounded so digital.. I can't believe people just jump on UA because of the marketing BS Overprice hype.. I've been telling people to test and compare.. I never use UA I tried and it's not worth the overprice tag.. I wish more people would do their homework. It shocks me because aren't we sound engineers.?? Use your ears people not the marketing tactics of UA
On the 80 Channel, the "realistic" clipping mode is Hard clipping (in the top right menu). Was it selected in the video ? It could explain the saturation differences.
Real neves have a strident top end like the UAD - totally understand if you like the smoother Lindell version but I was the head engineer at a studio with a 1974 EMI Neve console and the top end you had to be be very subtle with or it could easily rip your face off.
Smooth top end?? Go get a fricking Avalon 737. My GOD the UAD just destroys this in the top end. I do not understand how anyone thinks the Lindell would be better in a mix for THAT flavor. The entire magic of a 1084 is that top boost!!!
@@peevee605 Well you could say the same for example about a Presonus and a Manley too. It is clear what is better, and you get what you pay for. You would never compare them though. I just think some of these people have stock in this plug in company, because there is no way it even comes close to the UAD.
@@peevee605 I have worked with tons of hardware. It is just sad peoples ears cannot hear it. These are tools for MIXING. The Lindell is NOT going to pull something forward in a mix. That is the point of different EQ flavors and pres. People these days perceive warm as anything with no top end, or just all punch because all they do is hip hop and samples all day long.......but really either way these shoot outs are stupid because the only way to really know is in the context of an actual mix.
Great comparison, maybe is something about the Lindell that is a plus, you can select various types of oversampling, plus chosse how much headroom you wanna use. This controls are inside the configuration on the top right corner.
One thing about UAD developed plugins is that they run at 192k no matter your project sample rate - so they are always oversampled and reduce aliasing etc very well.
I liked the sound of the UAD on the lower spectrum instruments, kick and bass. On the guitar part, I preferred the Lindell. It was a little smoother on the top end.
100% agreed! the UAD was very harsh and the lindell sat perfectly. That being said i own a BAE and it can get very harsh sounding when you do boosts as big as you did on the guitar (mind you it looks like the boost was more on the UAD in the mids than on the lindell). good video though. I wanna do an ultimate Neve shoot out one day.
@@CreativeMindsAudio Totally agree, real neves get a strident top end like the UAD. I used to work daily on a 1974 EMI Neve console. The top end could rip your face off if you weren't careful - "smooth" top end is not how I think of Neve 1084/1073/1081. Its strange to me they developed that reputation.
I read thru a bunch of comments and there's a few pointers I'd like to highlight: 1. No two hardware units sound the same, in this case no two console channels sound the same, testament to the TMT stuff. So the plug ins could've been modeled from very different sounding arrays of units. 2. Oversampling: UAD does over sample, and also they HPF aggressively, but they do not state what oversampling is going on and how it changes with session sample rate. So more nebulous stuff. Lindell lets you pick oversampling to manage latency, and apparently the difference in sound is gargantuan. 3. Response and shelve behavior does not match: clearly this is a problem. I would rather want to check the frequency response of the units without the EQ engaged to remove extra variables. While these EQ's sound amazing I find that while working you can get what you want on a case by case basis, but what I primarily want from a Neve emulation is that saturation and that dynamic response. I'm looking for that 3d effect of the distortion and the transformers and that transient taming, and punch, rather than the right sounding shelf. With that in mind, even though the distortion from the UAD was much brighter, notice how the lindell sort of stays backwards in the speakers, and how the distortion sort of pushes the sound back rather than forward. I don't think its a great idea to push these units for creative distortion as hard as they where pushed in this example. This all leaves me feeling sort of disappointed with the lindell, that 3D stuff is hard to infuse into an ITB mix, and I expected the whole rage about TMT summing to be the answer. Maybe not...
The Lindell on the vocals was awesome. Well on everything. The UA sounded so digital.. I can't believe people just jump on UA because of the marketing BS Overprice hype.. I've been telling people to test and compare.. I never use UA I tried and it's not worth the overprice tag.. I wish more people would do their homework. It shocks me because aren't we sound engineers.?? Use your ears people not the marketing tactics of UA
The only way to determine which one is an accurate emulation of the hardware is to do this shoot out with an actual Neve. I know... hard to do so youre left with what youve done very well in this video and in the end, you have choose the flavor that suits your needs. I saw a shoot out between an actual Studer multi track and the UAD Studer. Not even close IMO. The difference between a plugin and the actual tape machine was very wide. That being said, as time goes on, and computer processing gets more powerful, the differences will become less and less. Great shootout in this video. Thanks for making it.
Good points. The only issue with a hardware shootout is that there are differences from unit to unit in the hardware too, especially vintage stuff. In the end, we just need to pick a tool that suits our sonic sensibilities and workflow. Thanks for watching!
The point is not to sound like the hardware That's UA sucking you in to their marketing BS Today we have to use plugins for most and simply put the Plugin Alliance Lindell is better to our ears... Fact.. unless you go out and buy a million dollar studio and then still in a mix with a great mix engineer you won't be able to tell the difference.. Happy Mixing and remember our ears as engineers are our friend not marketing tactics
Night and day difference. I have the 1084 and use it on many sources. I could see one owning both of these plugs for reasons stated in these comments...they both excel at different things.
Something, gain stainging wise was very wrong in these comparisons..ITs clearly that UAD has more grit when pushed, but can Lindell make a push too? We will never know.
In a mix I guarantee most of us would cut some of that high distortion on the bass to get out of the way of other instruments Lindell was balanced across the spectrum
Completely different sounding. The Lindell 80 is more true to the source and more natural sounding. UAD is hard in the highs. I think both could be more closer dialed in if used the UAD settings and trying to recreate that by ear on the Lindell. Great video nevertheless. Cheers
Very, very helpful comparison! 2 years ago UAD didn’t offer the Neve 1084 natively, but even today the price difference is huge. Lindell 80 is on sale for $49, whereas UA 1084 is usually $149 - $199. I love my Apollo x4 and would have expected to hear a bigger difference from the Unison pre-amp versus a native plugin like the Lindell 80. Now I’m second guessing my commitment to UA plugins, in some cases. I had been convinced UA Unison enabled channel strips, compressors and EQ were the way to go, while reverbs, delays and other FXs from UA were no better or worse than the alternatives. There’s a 14 day trial from Plugin Alliance on the Lindell, which I think I might try.
@@GagliardiJV I just bought the UAD Neve 1084 pack for my Apollo x4 and some other UAD plugins on sale. It is not available Native, so you’d need Apollo hardware with the Unison pre-amps to get an accurate emulation. I plan to do a comparison to the Lindell 80, which is a fraction of the price. My early sense is that the Lindell 80 is every bit as good. I feel like there’s 2 roads you can consider. If you go with Apollo hardware it gets expensive quickly, as UA plugins are still expensive, but the Unison pre-amps and the AD/DA conversion of Apollo interfaces is quite good - but it’s getting old. The other path is a more modern audio interface, like Audient, with plugins that use your computer’s CPU. There are some really great 3rd party channel strips at low prices that sound really good to me. That alternate path is at least 50% cheaper than UAD - and maybe the results are the same?
The Lindell on the vocals was awesome. Well on everything. The UA sounded so digital.. I can't believe people just jump on UA because of the marketing BS Overprice hype.. I've been telling people to test and compare.. I never use UA I tried and it's not worth the overprice tag.. I wish more people would do their homework. It shocks me because aren't we sound engineers.?? Use your ears people not the marketing tactics of UA.. Glad you figured it out but you put the money out first.. Sorry I always tell people don't get caught in the hype USE OUR EARS
Great video. Something else to consider is that probably they were emulated from different hardware unit. I don't have the HW unit but based on experience, no one HW unit even sounds the same. Since plugin-alliance / brainworx offers a lot of the UAD plugins in native format (and for a better price point), I am buying all the PA plugins. Since 2019, I have even subscribed for the megabundle and it is amazing! Finally, it would have been great to compare them in the whole mix (not only per track). Pls do more comparison (of other plugins).
Good point - there are a lot of variations in hardware based on tolerances of components, age, etc. The PA plugins are great, and some even mimic the hardware differences you mentioned with their TMT.
Nice comparison! I like how the UAD distorted the bass, but I preferred the vocals on the Lindell. I just bought the Lindell for cheap, so I might play with that THD setting for the saturation effect.
uad I think is really like hardware in midrange difference and the fuzz on top end. But very close sounds in the context except hard pushed preamp setting.
I can say I've never used the hardware and if you have that's awesome but if you're just repeating what UA says without testing then you have to reconsider after hearing these samples.. If you're serious about getting the best from your studio.
On this A/B test, I slightly to somewhat preferred the UAD sound on all sources. That said, was the Oversampling matched on the Lindell to keep things fair? Other factors favoring the PA Lindell version: all the additional features (not covered here, as mentioned), TMT for variant flavors, Native (no UAD required -- though I have UAD systems), and COST differential (frequent PA sales and/or covered in subscription)! Did you happen to test CPU differences?
The Lindell on the vocals was awesome. Well on everything. The UA sounded so digital.. I can't believe people just jump on UA because of the marketing BS Overprice hype.. I've been telling people to test and compare.. I never use UA I tried and it's not worth the overprice tag.. I wish more people would do their homework. It shocks me because aren't we sound engineers.?? Use your ears people not the marketing tactics of UA.. Listen again UA sounded thin on all test
The UAD SOUND on this video really suck as shit. The GUY WHO made this video manipulate it to MAKE UAD sound bad. You really a UAD FAN BOY with a very HIGH PLACEBO MIND. You still perceive it as a good sound hahahahaha
They sounded basically the same on the vocal but on everything else the UAD was way better. Kick was fatter, bass and guitar saturated and cut through way better. The Lindell sounded a bid dull and muddy. UAD was fat but still open sounding at the same time.
The UAD SOUND on this video really suck as shit. The GUY WHO made this video manipulate it to MAKE UAD sound bad. You really a UAD FAN BOY with a very HIGH PLACEBO MIND. You still perceive it as a good sound hahahahaha
@@jimmyoandrhondalee7431 Muddiness can be perceived as fullness and richness. But if it’s not open at the top as well, it’s just muddy. However, you’re free to have your own subjective perception of how it sounded to your ears.
Lindell wins in my ears.. regarding the saturation, Its beyond me why you are having issues with that.. sounds perfect here. Lindell is SO close to the real deal Neve (which we have a few of), that we mostly use Lindell now. LIndell simply opens up the sound.. UAD boosts a lot more in the lower midrange and low highs.. but if you like that thing, then a simple EQ will fix that for you. Remember: if you want it closer to UAD, just set oversampling to 8x or even 16x if you have the CPU power for it.. it sounds awesome. UPDATE: forgot to give my respect to you for the video.. its actually a great to the point video.. the Bass example tells it all :-)
The oversampling is where its at for this plugin. I have both. Also, he should've turned off the TMT for an apples to apples comparison. I have both and love them both.
@@MacReviewzOnline actually, the point of oversampling in regards of saturation is to counteract aliasing and intermodulation distortion, that is, the saturation bouncing back down from Nyquist audibly into the upper and low mid-range. It's not only affecting the the extreme highs.
@@talktokale exactly.. its audible in the percevied low end and mids too.. very clear to my ears (or how i "feel" the sound in a 3D way.. hmm.. did that make sense?)
The Lindell's curves are a bit different than the UAD, so you have to match by ear to really get them to sound the same. For example, the top band on the Lindell has a wider bandwidth, probably making it sound brighter. It is a great tool.
@@GreenLightSound they did a great job with the lindell 80 series i think you might of get the same sound of the uad if you recalibrated since uad models a single calibration point of the hardware
HOW in GODS NAME do you hear the Lindell as brighter?? The UAD has so much more top end and clarity in the 10k. Am I going crazy in a parallel universe? What are you people listening on???????
@@whitewizzardllc2348 They're talking about when they use the two plugins with the exact same settings (not dialling them in to sound similar by ear as in this video). Lindell definitely is not as trebly as the UAD in this video.
PA Bx may have TMT and THD, but UAD models the real mic input preamp transformer. Furthermore, UAD 1084 models the output clipping and THD behavior of the output fader. The saturation on the Lindell sounds more artificial. PA Bx is just a clean fader. UAD did a much better job modeling the actual hardware which is like a channel from an 80 series Neve with a 31102 EQ. PA Bx added the compressor and gate which aren't part of the original 80 series channel strip. UAD did a much better, more accurate job recreating the channel from this legendary console.
All that mumble jumbo You know the Lindell was better All hype from UA Be honest here Most people on this thread don't agree with you But we all have our own ears...
@@MacReviewzOnline It absolutely does matter. Oversampling makes an objectively significant improvement when applying distortion in the digital domain.
I also have both of these, on UAD and the PA Mix and Master package, I bought the UAD 1084 after trying it out on an acoustic guitar, sounded too good not to buy, same thing with the Maag EQ. the top end for me is smoother and bigger on both of those on the UAD platform. As to what's going here, I appreciate the comparison but I prefer to check things out for myself on my own setup.
I agree with Jyun..."To my ears, UAD sounds more punchy and Lindell sounds flat. Also, UAD's mic distortion sounds way more impact." I have 3 UAD2 OCTO. Even though I liked the Lindell on the snare. Right now it is on sale for $49 at PA till 11:59 pm pst tonight 3-6-21. Ill probably buy it for that much...and never use it. LOL It is a design flaw though that the GATE is the last thing in the chain and you cant make the separate components pre or post. Cmon guys...simple coding
uad sounds more pleasant on the bass distorsion and snare while I prefer the lindell on the kick. the lindell emphasizes an ugly resonance of the snare more than the uad
Who cares? Did you listen? That's the problem you're looking for someone to tell you wink wink UA marketing.. USE YOUR EARS and make a decision For me and most on this post it's Lindell
The UAD SOUND on this video really suck as shit. The GUY WHO made this video manipulate it to MAKE UAD sound bad. You really a UAD FAN BOY with a very HIGH PLACEBO MIND. You still perceive it as a good sound hahahahaha
There are definitely differences between the 2 options, but I found that the levels weren't matched evenly enough. Wouldn't running tone through each give you a method of comparing levels more fairly? Just a thought. Thanks again for sharing this comparison!
I just roughly matched levels, so you may have a point there. Some of the difference is the result of the fact that the two have different EQ curves. I prefer to run "real world" music through these rather than test tones. Thanks for watching!
A meaningful comparison. Indeed, the saturation and low-frequency adhesion of the Lindell 80 are very poor. The biggest highlight of the Lindell 80 is the unparalleled high frequency above 8K-16K even in the real machine.
Who cares? Did you listen? That's the problem you're looking for someone to tell you wink wink UA marketing.. USE YOUR EARS and make a decision For me and most on this post it's Lindell
The Lindell on the vocals was awesome. Well on everything. The UA sounded so digital.. I can't believe people just jump on UA because of the marketing BS Overprice hype.. I've been telling people to test and compare.. I never use UA I tried and it's not worth the overprice tag.. I wish more people would do their homework. It shocks me because aren't we sound engineers.?? Use your ears people not the marketing tactics of UA
I like the sound of the Neve on most examples. Please try to understand that how we feel about the way that anything sounds relative to better or worse, is subjective and not at all definitive.
The sad thing Is if you don’t have the hardware you can’t use their plugins and I will not purchase UAD hardware for plugins. I rather stick with what I have.
My production skills sky rocketed bc of buying simple UAD hardware. Instead of not understanding 100's of plugins on the computer i stick now with what i buy and learn. Facts
@@cosmo5179 I understand, cool if that works for ya. I mostly use analog hardware and by 32 channel DDA dmr12 console but have say Plugin Alliance Brainworx kicks ass with their line of analog plugins and Antelope plugins that came with my Orion 32+ sound great too. I haven't done an A/B with UAD and personally in this day and age I think the big company plugins are so close that they all sound great.
Really on an I phone you would decide what plugin you liked?.. Whats happening with today's so called producers.. Seems like everyone just wants to use what they're told instead of listening
It is funny how most of the people here prefer the Lindell when the UAD is clearly the sound we hear in moderm songs topping the charts. Would that explain why even though over 40k songs are uploaded daily to Spotify only a few dozens make it?
Ok brother no disrespect but who sold you this bag of crap.. How can anyone tell what was used on a song... Marketing BS has got you memorized... Did you listen to the sample here? Probably not really because you got sucked into UA marketing and you can't trust your ears now.. I recommend listening again on headphones
The UAD SOUND on this video really suck as shit. The GUY WHO made this video manipulate it to MAKE UAD sound bad. You really a UAD FAN BOY with a very HIGH PLACEBO MIND. You still perceive it as a good sound hahahahaha
Quit looking at graphs and use your ears Close your eyes get out of UA marketing heaven and USE YOUR EARS.. Have you read any of the comments on this thread???
Agreed ...The UAD destroys the Lindell in the top end. It sounds aeons better. It is not even a comparison unless you have crap ears. Amazing I question peoples mixing experience on here. Wow.
What in the hell are you listening on? The UAD is just like the actual pre. It is all about the top end boost. Some of you I swear are either working for this Lindell company or have really bad ears and are inexperienced. There is NO comparison. Those of you that just produce hip hop and are used to Avalon 737s and nothing but punch just do not get it. Peoples ears are Whack these days.
I love the PA SSL 4000 E and use it all the time, but it's totally different than the Neve sound. Also, the e series was first produced in 1979, so it's not exactly a modern tool.
How can ANYONE prefer the Lindell lol? The top end on the Neve is SO much better and cuts like it is supposed too. Lordy. It is clear as crystal on monitor headphones. The entire magic of a 1084 is that top end boost. In a mix the difference would even be MORE obvious. Man peoples ears are just so damn different or how they perceive sound. I cannot for the life of me see how someone thinks the Lindell is even in the same ballpark.
The UAD seems more lively to me, but as a non UAD guy i'd plump for the native as its also got the EQ and Comp although i'm puzzled as to why they'd put the Gate after compression, surely it should come before as compression will raise the background noise. Can you move the Gate and compressor in the Lindell?
UAD? LOVELY? LOL..... this Guy was faking everything.... PAID BY LINDELL.... intentionally making UAD sounds like a FROG... Then You said UAD WAS LOVELY? HAHAHAHAHA You are really a real BRAND FANATIC.... all are PLACEBOS and hallucination don't trust your ears... you are being fooled by yourself....You suffered FANATIC ILLNESS, underestimating NATIVE PLUGS....
The 31102 is a little different because it doesn't have a line input, so it might not saturate the same way. UA also makes a 31102 which might make for a fairer comparison.
Loving the Lindell. All over my template from now on
Didn't make sense to ignore the extra Lindell saturation settings when working with that. They sounded similar but different overall. The saturation sounded very different. I like that the Lindell had so many more options.... I'd much rather see something more comprehensive with both units and what they can do.... Rather than trying to replicate settings. That would tell us much more about which unit was right for us.
i love the smoother sound of lindell
Got the Lindell 80 for £30 and this video confirms that I don't need to consider the UAD. Lindell 80 is now on every one of my channels and the Lindell Bus also on my stereo bus (if indeed the music needs that kind of treatment). When the other Lindell console emulations are on sale, I'll be getting those I think. Best £30 I've spent on plugins. Thanks
The Lindell on the vocals was awesome. Well on everything. The UA sounded so digital.. I can't believe people just jump on UA because of the marketing BS Overprice hype.. I've been telling people to test and compare.. I never use UA I tried and it's not worth the overprice tag.. I wish more people would do their homework. It shocks me because aren't we sound engineers.?? Use your ears people not the marketing tactics of UA
Excellent video. Thank you for the time and effort you put into this comparison.
Thanks!
On the 80 Channel, the "realistic" clipping mode is Hard clipping (in the top right menu). Was it selected in the video ? It could explain the saturation differences.
Do we want it on or off for heavy nice upfront rap vocals? The clipping set to..? Thx
I'm very happy with my lindell 80 series. My goto strip when things are to be delicate and smooth
Impressed with Lindell. Smoother top, more like I expect from Neve. I don't really like the harsh top on the UAD much when it saturates.
Same here, but then again you can adjust which ever you have to taste. Mostly the plugs are 99% the same
Yep, both good.
Real neves have a strident top end like the UAD - totally understand if you like the smoother Lindell version but I was the head engineer at a studio with a 1974 EMI Neve console and the top end you had to be be very subtle with or it could easily rip your face off.
@@GetUpTo88, thanks for the insight. Interesting!
Smooth top end?? Go get a fricking Avalon 737. My GOD the UAD just destroys this in the top end. I do not understand how anyone thinks the Lindell would be better in a mix for THAT flavor. The entire magic of a 1084 is that top boost!!!
Love the Lindell.
The Neve UAD destroys it.
@@whitewizzardllc2348 and costs an arm and a leg too. :) UAD is greatly overall, though.
@@peevee605 Well you could say the same for example about a Presonus and a Manley too. It is clear what is better, and you get what you pay for. You would never compare them though. I just think some of these people have stock in this plug in company, because there is no way it even comes close to the UAD.
@@whitewizzardllc2348 have you been working with the hardware by any chance?
@@peevee605 I have worked with tons of hardware. It is just sad peoples ears cannot hear it. These are tools for MIXING. The Lindell is NOT going to pull something forward in a mix. That is the point of different EQ flavors and pres. People these days perceive warm as anything with no top end, or just all punch because all they do is hip hop and samples all day long.......but really either way these shoot outs are stupid because the only way to really know is in the context of an actual mix.
Great comparison, maybe is something about the Lindell that is a plus, you can select various types of oversampling, plus chosse how much headroom you wanna use. This controls are inside the configuration on the top right corner.
Good points. It certainly has more features than the UA.
One thing about UAD developed plugins is that they run at 192k no matter your project sample rate - so they are always oversampled and reduce aliasing etc very well.
@@GetUpTo88 Totally and since we comment this UAD already launch their version of this neve compressor
@@sgfdancecompany Yes, I have it as well! Haven't had much chance to use it a lot yet tho.
I liked the sound of the UAD on the lower spectrum instruments, kick and bass. On the guitar part, I preferred the Lindell. It was a little smoother on the top end.
Good ear. The UAD excelled on the lower frequencies and the Lindell had a really nice upper mid range.
100% agreed! the UAD was very harsh and the lindell sat perfectly. That being said i own a BAE and it can get very harsh sounding when you do boosts as big as you did on the guitar (mind you it looks like the boost was more on the UAD in the mids than on the lindell). good video though. I wanna do an ultimate Neve shoot out one day.
@@CreativeMindsAudio Totally agree, real neves get a strident top end like the UAD. I used to work daily on a 1974 EMI Neve console. The top end could rip your face off if you weren't careful - "smooth" top end is not how I think of Neve 1084/1073/1081. Its strange to me they developed that reputation.
@@GetUpTo88 for sure! neve = air not necessarily smooth top end. if you want smooth/silky top end use a pulltec.
I read thru a bunch of comments and there's a few pointers I'd like to highlight:
1. No two hardware units sound the same, in this case no two console channels sound the same, testament to the TMT stuff. So the plug ins could've been modeled from very different sounding arrays of units.
2. Oversampling: UAD does over sample, and also they HPF aggressively, but they do not state what oversampling is going on and how it changes with session sample rate. So more nebulous stuff. Lindell lets you pick oversampling to manage latency, and apparently the difference in sound is gargantuan.
3. Response and shelve behavior does not match: clearly this is a problem. I would rather want to check the frequency response of the units without the EQ engaged to remove extra variables. While these EQ's sound amazing I find that while working you can get what you want on a case by case basis, but what I primarily want from a Neve emulation is that saturation and that dynamic response. I'm looking for that 3d effect of the distortion and the transformers and that transient taming, and punch, rather than the right sounding shelf.
With that in mind, even though the distortion from the UAD was much brighter, notice how the lindell sort of stays backwards in the speakers, and how the distortion sort of pushes the sound back rather than forward. I don't think its a great idea to push these units for creative distortion as hard as they where pushed in this example. This all leaves me feeling sort of disappointed with the lindell, that 3D stuff is hard to infuse into an ITB mix, and I expected the whole rage about TMT summing to be the answer. Maybe not...
🤌🏽👏🏽👏🏽
The Lindell on the vocals was awesome. Well on everything. The UA sounded so digital.. I can't believe people just jump on UA because of the marketing BS Overprice hype.. I've been telling people to test and compare.. I never use UA I tried and it's not worth the overprice tag.. I wish more people would do their homework. It shocks me because aren't we sound engineers.?? Use your ears people not the marketing tactics of UA
But UAD is a very good brand, and its prices are better, it doesn’t make sense to pay more for something else 😉
Using the 80 Channel & 80 Bus together works great
Great Comparison, thanks!
On the e guitar the lower end was really nice in the Lindell
Lindell plugin sounded warmer to me on vocals
That Lindell preamp sounds very good!
activate the oversampling option and see how crazy it is close to hardware even beating uad.
@@aviatedviewssound4798 LOL RIIIIIIGGGHHHHTTTT
The only way to determine which one is an accurate emulation of the hardware is to do this shoot out with an actual Neve. I know... hard to do so youre left with what youve done very well in this video and in the end, you have choose the flavor that suits your needs. I saw a shoot out between an actual Studer multi track and the UAD Studer. Not even close IMO. The difference between a plugin and the actual tape machine was very wide. That being said, as time goes on, and computer processing gets more powerful, the differences will become less and less.
Great shootout in this video. Thanks for making it.
Good points. The only issue with a hardware shootout is that there are differences from unit to unit in the hardware too, especially vintage stuff. In the end, we just need to pick a tool that suits our sonic sensibilities and workflow. Thanks for watching!
The point is not to sound like the hardware That's UA sucking you in to their marketing BS Today we have to use plugins for most and simply put the Plugin Alliance Lindell is better to our ears... Fact.. unless you go out and buy a million dollar studio and then still in a mix with a great mix engineer you won't be able to tell the difference.. Happy Mixing and remember our ears as engineers are our friend not marketing tactics
Night and day difference. I have the 1084 and use it on many sources. I could see one owning both of these plugs for reasons stated in these comments...they both excel at different things.
The UAD destroys this. The top end is un comparable.
TBF, the Lindell has oversampling that will bring MUCH more definition. It makes a big difference between the 2x (standard) and 16x oversampling.
Good point.
exactly.. 8x or even 16x if CPU is no issue will REALLY bring out the Neve sound.
LOL, I am sure you cant hear the difference. At 12 years old maybe you can hear over 16K.
@@MacReviewzOnline it's not 16k. It's 16 x oversampling. The difference becomes clear with good monitoring. Try the plugin, it isn't hard to notice.
@@soulsonic I know. it would increase upper frequency tolerance. #psychoacoustics
Something, gain stainging wise was very wrong in these comparisons..ITs clearly that UAD has more grit when pushed, but can Lindell make a push too? We will never know.
In a mix I guarantee most of us would cut some of that high distortion on the bass to get out of the way of other instruments Lindell was balanced across the spectrum
Completely different sounding. The Lindell 80 is more true to the source and more natural sounding. UAD is hard in the highs. I think both could be more closer dialed in if used the UAD settings and trying to recreate that by ear on the Lindell. Great video nevertheless. Cheers
Most UAD plugins are 'hard in the highs'. No one ever talks about this.
Very, very helpful comparison! 2 years ago UAD didn’t offer the Neve 1084 natively, but even today the price difference is huge. Lindell 80 is on sale for $49, whereas UA 1084 is usually $149 - $199. I love my Apollo x4 and would have expected to hear a bigger difference from the Unison pre-amp versus a native plugin like the Lindell 80. Now I’m second guessing my commitment to UA plugins, in some cases. I had been convinced UA Unison enabled channel strips, compressors and EQ were the way to go, while reverbs, delays and other FXs from UA were no better or worse than the alternatives. There’s a 14 day trial from Plugin Alliance on the Lindell, which I think I might try.
Is the UAD native now??? I thought it lists Apollo only on their web site
@@GagliardiJV you are correct.
@@JeffyG yea so you need Uad hardware right? (Haha sorry I really wanna get the Uad neve but don’t think I can)
@@GagliardiJV I just bought the UAD Neve 1084 pack for my Apollo x4 and some other UAD plugins on sale. It is not available Native, so you’d need Apollo hardware with the Unison pre-amps to get an accurate emulation. I plan to do a comparison to the Lindell 80, which is a fraction of the price. My early sense is that the Lindell 80 is every bit as good. I feel like there’s 2 roads you can consider. If you go with Apollo hardware it gets expensive quickly, as UA plugins are still expensive, but the Unison pre-amps and the AD/DA conversion of Apollo interfaces is quite good - but it’s getting old. The other path is a more modern audio interface, like Audient, with plugins that use your computer’s CPU. There are some really great 3rd party channel strips at low prices that sound really good to me. That alternate path is at least 50% cheaper than UAD - and maybe the results are the same?
The Lindell on the vocals was awesome. Well on everything. The UA sounded so digital.. I can't believe people just jump on UA because of the marketing BS Overprice hype.. I've been telling people to test and compare.. I never use UA I tried and it's not worth the overprice tag.. I wish more people would do their homework. It shocks me because aren't we sound engineers.?? Use your ears people not the marketing tactics of UA.. Glad you figured it out but you put the money out first.. Sorry I always tell people don't get caught in the hype USE OUR EARS
Great video. Something else to consider is that probably they were emulated from different hardware unit. I don't have the HW unit but based on experience, no one HW unit even sounds the same. Since plugin-alliance / brainworx offers a lot of the UAD plugins in native format (and for a better price point), I am buying all the PA plugins. Since 2019, I have even subscribed for the megabundle and it is amazing! Finally, it would have been great to compare them in the whole mix (not only per track). Pls do more comparison (of other plugins).
Good point - there are a lot of variations in hardware based on tolerances of components, age, etc. The PA plugins are great, and some even mimic the hardware differences you mentioned with their TMT.
Go to 6:00 and listen to those guitars. The Lindell sounds soooo much more full and rich.
UAD distortion on the bass is so creamy.
I think the saturation behavior is the biggest difference between the two.
Nice comparison! I like how the UAD distorted the bass, but I preferred the vocals on the Lindell. I just bought the Lindell for cheap, so I might play with that THD setting for the saturation effect.
Thanks! Engage oversampling on the Lindell for the most authentic saturation.
uad I think is really like hardware in midrange difference and the fuzz on top end. But very close sounds in the context except hard pushed preamp setting.
I can say I've never used the hardware and if you have that's awesome but if you're just repeating what UA says without testing then you have to reconsider after hearing these samples.. If you're serious about getting the best from your studio.
On this A/B test, I slightly to somewhat preferred the UAD sound on all sources. That said, was the Oversampling matched on the Lindell to keep things fair?
Other factors favoring the PA Lindell version: all the additional features (not covered here, as mentioned), TMT for variant flavors, Native (no UAD required -- though I have UAD systems), and COST differential (frequent PA sales and/or covered in subscription)! Did you happen to test CPU differences?
Good points.
Your both ears are fooling you, please see a doctor LOL
The Lindell on the vocals was awesome. Well on everything. The UA sounded so digital.. I can't believe people just jump on UA because of the marketing BS Overprice hype.. I've been telling people to test and compare.. I never use UA I tried and it's not worth the overprice tag.. I wish more people would do their homework. It shocks me because aren't we sound engineers.?? Use your ears people not the marketing tactics of UA.. Listen again UA sounded thin on all test
Anybody know where the bae 1084 at?
love this thank you!
You're welcome!
why not set one by ear and then flip the phase and match the other by twisting around? go for max cancellation then flip the phase back
UAD takes the cake. More lively, rounded, present & open sounding
nice joke ))))
@@MrShwir UAD destroys it. Anyone that thinks otherwise has bad ears or lacks true mixing experience.
The UAD SOUND on this video really suck as shit. The GUY WHO made this video manipulate it to MAKE UAD sound bad. You really a UAD FAN BOY with a very HIGH PLACEBO MIND. You still perceive it as a good sound hahahahaha
I vote for Lindell.
im wondering if you used one of the eq's to try and match the curve of the other one. Then how close would they sound?
I first matched settings from the UAD to the Lindell. Sometimes it wasn't close, so I fine tuned by ear.
The UAD when you want to annoy the listeners. The Lindell when you want to please them.
Your both ears are in a perfect condition pal
Amazing response. Lindell audio, one of the few plugin makers who deserves to be supporting
COuldn't agree more Really I can't believe UA has these people hypnotized LOL USE YOUR EARS PEOPLE NOT THE MARKETING HYPE
Lol
They sounded basically the same on the vocal but on everything else the UAD was way better. Kick was fatter, bass and guitar saturated and cut through way better. The Lindell sounded a bid dull and muddy. UAD was fat but still open sounding at the same time.
The UAD SOUND on this video really suck as shit. The GUY WHO made this video manipulate it to MAKE UAD sound bad. You really a UAD FAN BOY with a very HIGH PLACEBO MIND. You still perceive it as a good sound hahahahaha
The vocal on the Lindell was way richer and full Listen again
@@jimmyoandrhondalee7431 Muddiness can be perceived as fullness and richness. But if it’s not open at the top as well, it’s just muddy. However, you’re free to have your own subjective perception of how it sounded to your ears.
Lindell wins in my ears.. regarding the saturation, Its beyond me why you are having issues with that.. sounds perfect here. Lindell is SO close to the real deal Neve (which we have a few of), that we mostly use Lindell now. LIndell simply opens up the sound.. UAD boosts a lot more in the lower midrange and low highs.. but if you like that thing, then a simple EQ will fix that for you.
Remember: if you want it closer to UAD, just set oversampling to 8x or even 16x if you have the CPU power for it.. it sounds awesome.
UPDATE: forgot to give my respect to you for the video.. its actually a great to the point video.. the Bass example tells it all :-)
The oversampling is where its at for this plugin. I have both. Also, he should've turned off the TMT for an apples to apples comparison. I have both and love them both.
you won't hear the oversampling difference..unless you are 12...not as a geezer with top frequencies lost already , lol...
@@MacReviewzOnline actually, the point of oversampling in regards of saturation is to counteract aliasing and intermodulation distortion, that is, the saturation bouncing back down from Nyquist audibly into the upper and low mid-range. It's not only affecting the the extreme highs.
@@talktokale exactly.. its audible in the percevied low end and mids too.. very clear to my ears (or how i "feel" the sound in a 3D way.. hmm.. did that make sense?)
Do you have the uad too?
in my comparison the Lindell sounded more forward and brighter with the exact same settings i didnt mess with the calibrations loving that limdell
The Lindell's curves are a bit different than the UAD, so you have to match by ear to really get them to sound the same. For example, the top band on the Lindell has a wider bandwidth, probably making it sound brighter. It is a great tool.
@@GreenLightSound they did a great job with the lindell 80 series i think you might of get the same sound of the uad if you recalibrated since uad models a single calibration point of the hardware
HOW in GODS NAME do you hear the Lindell as brighter?? The UAD has so much more top end and clarity in the 10k. Am I going crazy in a parallel universe? What are you people listening on???????
@@whitewizzardllc2348 They're talking about when they use the two plugins with the exact same settings (not dialling them in to sound similar by ear as in this video). Lindell definitely is not as trebly as the UAD in this video.
@@whitewizzardllc2348 you should try the Overloud s eq84. I think its better than lindells and top notch as Uad
PA Bx may have TMT and THD, but UAD models the real mic input preamp transformer. Furthermore, UAD 1084 models the output clipping and THD behavior of the output fader. The saturation on the Lindell sounds more artificial. PA Bx is just a clean fader. UAD did a much better job modeling the actual hardware which is like a channel from an 80 series Neve with a 31102 EQ. PA Bx added the compressor and gate which aren't part of the original 80 series channel strip. UAD did a much better, more accurate job recreating the channel from this legendary console.
What kinf of ears do you have Please see a doctor
All that mumble jumbo You know the Lindell was better All hype from UA Be honest here Most people on this thread don't agree with you But we all have our own ears...
is this w the default 2x oversampling?
I don't think I changed the oversampling so it must be.
none of that matters
@@MacReviewzOnline It absolutely does matter. Oversampling makes an objectively significant improvement when applying distortion in the digital domain.
Uad real tube warm? Lindell.. (
I also have both of these, on UAD and the PA Mix and Master package, I bought the UAD 1084 after trying it out on an acoustic guitar, sounded too good not to buy, same thing with the Maag EQ. the top end for me is smoother and bigger on both of those on the UAD platform. As to what's going here, I appreciate the comparison but I prefer to check things out for myself on my own setup.
lol then why did you watch it
@@buhlir Let’s go Brandon.
I agree with Jyun..."To my ears, UAD sounds more punchy and Lindell sounds flat. Also, UAD's mic distortion sounds way more impact." I have 3 UAD2 OCTO. Even though I liked the Lindell on the snare. Right now it is on sale for $49 at PA till 11:59 pm pst tonight 3-6-21. Ill probably buy it for that much...and never use it. LOL It is a design flaw though that the GATE is the last thing in the chain and you cant make the separate components pre or post. Cmon guys...simple coding
I don’t know how anyone walks away thinking Lindell is better. Why anyone would want a flat pre is beyond me.
PAL I think you need a doctor ASAP.
Listen again You own UA so really be honest Listen again.. The kick sample should have been enough Listen Again
uad sounds more pleasant on the bass distorsion and snare while I prefer the lindell on the kick. the lindell emphasizes an ugly resonance of the snare more than the uad
Which one is closer to an actual Neve is anybody has experience??
Who cares? Did you listen? That's the problem you're looking for someone to tell you wink wink UA marketing.. USE YOUR EARS and make a decision For me and most on this post it's Lindell
To my ears, UAD sounds more punchy and Lindell sounds flat. Also, UAD's mic distortion sounds way more impact.
The UAD SOUND on this video really suck as shit. The GUY WHO made this video manipulate it to MAKE UAD sound bad. You really a UAD FAN BOY with a very HIGH PLACEBO MIND. You still perceive it as a good sound hahahahaha
Uad...preamp has more weight too
Totally agree. The preamp is the biggest difference between the two.
@@GreenLightSound i agree 100% other than that...not much big diff
@@GreenLightSound you should've activated the oversampling options it will be closer to hardware this way
Using subjective words I think the lindell was more open.
Hands down Lindell
neve is uad2 at least the apollo processors kick in with the unison tech
There are definitely differences between the 2 options, but I found that the levels weren't matched evenly enough. Wouldn't running tone through each give you a method of comparing levels more fairly? Just a thought. Thanks again for sharing this comparison!
I just roughly matched levels, so you may have a point there. Some of the difference is the result of the fact that the two have different EQ curves. I prefer to run "real world" music through these rather than test tones. Thanks for watching!
After I had been using Plugin Alliance plugin. I believe that for Waves plagin is time to retirement. Thanks
Huge difference
A meaningful comparison. Indeed, the saturation and low-frequency adhesion of the Lindell 80 are very poor. The biggest highlight of the Lindell 80 is the unparalleled high frequency above 8K-16K even in the real machine.
Somebody who has worked with an actual Neve??? Which one is closer????
Who cares? Did you listen? That's the problem you're looking for someone to tell you wink wink UA marketing.. USE YOUR EARS and make a decision For me and most on this post it's Lindell
The Lindell on the vocals was awesome. Well on everything. The UA sounded so digital.. I can't believe people just jump on UA because of the marketing BS Overprice hype.. I've been telling people to test and compare.. I never use UA I tried and it's not worth the overprice tag.. I wish more people would do their homework. It shocks me because aren't we sound engineers.?? Use your ears people not the marketing tactics of UA
I like the sound of the Neve on most examples. Please try to understand that how we feel about the way that anything sounds relative to better or worse, is subjective and not at all definitive.
The sad thing Is if you don’t have the hardware you can’t use their plugins and I will not purchase UAD hardware for plugins. I rather stick with what I have.
My production skills sky rocketed bc of buying simple UAD hardware. Instead of not understanding 100's of plugins on the computer i stick now with what i buy and learn. Facts
@@cosmo5179 I understand, cool if that works for ya. I mostly use analog hardware and by 32 channel DDA dmr12 console but have say Plugin Alliance Brainworx kicks ass with their line of analog plugins and Antelope plugins that came with my Orion 32+ sound great too. I haven't done an A/B with UAD and personally in this day and age I think the big company plugins are so close that they all sound great.
@@delucadrums yes you're right. I also own a handful of PA plugins and it's quality stuff indeed. I hear great things about Antelope too!
The vocals on the UA was very harsh to my ears Lindell wins in those setting again
Vocals sound flatter on iphone with lindell though
Really on an I phone you would decide what plugin you liked?.. Whats happening with today's so called producers.. Seems like everyone just wants to use what they're told instead of listening
@@jimmyoandrhondalee7431 this was 2 years ago, dont even know what the video is about 😂
It is funny how most of the people here prefer the Lindell when the UAD is clearly the sound we hear in moderm songs topping the charts. Would that explain why even though over 40k songs are uploaded daily to Spotify only a few dozens make it?
no.
What happen if LINDELL is the sound we hear in moderm songs topping the charts? it is even superior to UAD idiot
Ok brother no disrespect but who sold you this bag of crap.. How can anyone tell what was used on a song... Marketing BS has got you memorized... Did you listen to the sample here? Probably not really because you got sucked into UA marketing and you can't trust your ears now.. I recommend listening again on headphones
Listen to the snare over and over and the Lindell just has a fatter sound.
To my ears the uad sound better on every source except vocals.
The UAD SOUND on this video really suck as shit. The GUY WHO made this video manipulate it to MAKE UAD sound bad. You really a UAD FAN BOY with a very HIGH PLACEBO MIND. You still perceive it as a good sound hahahahaha
uad sounds more musical and agressive
Lindell .
UAD BRO IS MORE SWEET AND DEFINED THE CURVES SPECTRUM SHOW US THE DIFERENCE
Quit looking at graphs and use your ears Close your eyes get out of UA marketing heaven and USE YOUR EARS.. Have you read any of the comments on this thread???
UAD all the way. Lindell is more flat sounding and seems more fiddly to set as compared to the UAD.
Agreed ...The UAD destroys the Lindell in the top end. It sounds aeons better. It is not even a comparison unless you have crap ears. Amazing I question peoples mixing experience on here. Wow.
Listen again I guarantee you go sucked into all UA
Compared to the Lindell the UAD sounds like a thin piece of garbage xD.. and it’s even damn cheap (29.99)
What in the hell are you listening on? The UAD is just like the actual pre. It is all about the top end boost. Some of you I swear are either working for this Lindell company or have really bad ears and are inexperienced. There is NO comparison. Those of you that just produce hip hop and are used to Avalon 737s and nothing but punch just do not get it. Peoples ears are Whack these days.
Couldn't agree more
why not just go pro , and upgrade to PA SSL4000E...so much nicer looking and probably better sounding for this day and age music.
I love the PA SSL 4000 E and use it all the time, but it's totally different than the Neve sound. Also, the e series was first produced in 1979, so it's not exactly a modern tool.
Lindell is better on the vocals
How can ANYONE prefer the Lindell lol? The top end on the Neve is SO much better and cuts like it is supposed too.
Lordy. It is clear as crystal on monitor headphones. The entire magic of a 1084 is that top end boost. In a mix the difference would even be MORE obvious. Man peoples ears are just so damn different or how they perceive sound. I cannot for the life of me see how someone thinks the Lindell is even in the same ballpark.
The UAD seems more lively to me, but as a non UAD guy i'd plump for the native as its also got the EQ and Comp although i'm puzzled as to why they'd put the Gate after compression, surely it should come before as compression will raise the background noise. Can you move the Gate and compressor in the Lindell?
It is strange, and I don't think you can switch the processing in the Lindell.
if you ask plugin alliance to do it they will do it
@@aviatedviewssound4798 do it now
UAD? LOVELY? LOL..... this Guy was faking everything.... PAID BY LINDELL.... intentionally making UAD sounds like a FROG... Then You said UAD WAS LOVELY? HAHAHAHAHA You are really a real BRAND FANATIC.... all are PLACEBOS and hallucination don't trust your ears... you are being fooled by yourself....You suffered FANATIC ILLNESS, underestimating NATIVE PLUGS....
Hi Joe, how about shooting this out against the Noise Ash Need 31102?
The 31102 is a little different because it doesn't have a line input, so it might not saturate the same way. UA also makes a 31102 which might make for a fairer comparison.
Noise Ash Need is surely the best of the bunch!