WHY would ANYONE buy this €10.000,- COMPRESSOR!?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2024
- Check the Herchild here (direct): heritageaudio....
Thomann Affiliate: thmn.to/thopro...
Sweetwater Affiliate: sweetwater.sjv...
Huge thanks to Amptec! www.amptec.nl/
► MIXING & MASTERING: whiteseastudio...
►THOMANN AFFILIATE: whiteseastudio...
►SWEETWATER AFFILIATE: whiteseastudio...
►PLUGIN BOUTIQUE AFFILIATE: whiteseastudio...
►Become a member: / @whiteseastudio
I actually thought there was a huge difference on drums (with reverb) comparison too. Particularly on the snare. The snare going through the hardware sounded glorious to me.
Didn’t hear any difference
For me… I like the ‘idea’ of hardware but this proves that there’s not a $10,000 difference. Unless you have the clientele and/ or coin…
Even in the full mix I thought the differences were pretty minor. I could certainly tell the difference, it just wasn't $10,000 worth of difference. I'm really very impressed with the plugin after this video.
The plugin was shown by leslie on jack harlows vocals as well. Look up how much of the tone difference the plugin adds just by adding it to the chain
That’s the thing with most expensive gear though isn’t it? Can hear a difference but not a $xxxx difference. You don’t need any of that stuff to make good mixes, it’s just nice to have if you can justify the spend.
@@viralempire1986 I think personally what I found out of all things ever possible important for me right now first for a home studio is the cvox by uad. I have noticed when I’m able to get rid of any of my noise and with that plug-in too using it post to get rid of any reflections… it almost mixes the vocals like perfect. I’m always like how in these example videos are they mixing these so good and then I notice the raw is so clean. I think that plug-in is tier 1. Waves clarity is close but I have just heard insane results with that uad one for getting that raw result upfront
I’m not hearing the same thing as folks saying the difference is minor. And it’s not bias: I mix almost entirely in the box and can’t imagine ever being able to justify a purchase like this. But to me it’s night and day, the hardware just sounds wider, deeper and more natural. The plugin has more top end but sounds very “boxed in” and constrained in each example. And pushed settings start to get messy
Same impression here. Really not that huge of a difference compared to the plugin. Gonna stick to my beloved UAD version and might use a little more saturation to even out the differences even more.
Wow the whole mix difference was actually pretty amazing. The analog unit sounds so much more relaxed!
analog just adds that extra dimension, 3D sound.
@@vandpiben the hardware seems to compress more, but it's still pretty transparent
On my monitors it sounds warmer and more natural. The sound is more pleasant overall. I feel like the mids and aprox 4-5k hit harder on the plugin.
The depth of the mix and the smoothness, creaminess, and BODY, just sound SO good with the $10000 unit vs the UAD. The UAD has so much less depth and is a bit hard-edged by comparison, even if it is very usable. I agree. Just to come up with 10 grand for the amazing deliciousness of the high-end hardware...
@@vandpiben I actually prefer the digital one, it doesn't feel as messy and clutered at times
This is the type of thing where people need to realize that when someone is buying one of these, they're at the point where "just a tiny bit better" is exactly what they'd expect. When you add up all of the "tiny bit better" equipment throughout the signal chain, it's what separates the pros from the regular folks.
This is a great comment - this equipment is obv top of the line for top of the line recordings
I think the psychological impact of owning heavy gear is more impactful than the actual hardware itself. I have a good amount of hardware in my studio. The brain amplifies the impact of owning expensive hardware well beyond the actual differences it imparts. I am referring to Universal Audio products and Avalon hardware here on which I have built my hardware front end.
And yet, people like Serban Ghenea and Scheps mix completely in the box and they aren't the only ones. The equipment is not what differs the pro's from the regular folks i promise you that!
@@asymmetrymedia9838 100% being creative and artistically relevant matters more than anything
Tiny? I say night and day. The UAD is just too slow. Also the make up gain on the analog is different compared to the UAD. The analog one pushes the whole compressed freq band to the front. But silky. The blue stripe 1176 he has does the same. The whole mix as magic in my book. It should have had a none processed version next to it.
The hardware consistently manages to sound less compressed. Transients and the high end pops out more to me and sounds like it reaches out to me more.
People don't necessarily realise that even though those are small differences in isolation, I feel more connected to the hardware compressed version and that could be the difference between me listening to it for 10 seconds and skipping or really giving it a chance. This MATTERS in a world where music is so easily available on streaming platforms and people will not give tracks that don't immediately catch their attention the time of day.
This.
"In a world where music is so easily available on streaming platforms and people will not give tracks that don't immediately catch their attention the time of day" people are mostly listening to stuff on the go or in otherwise less than perfect listening conditions and the nuances between these two versions will be completely lost in background noise.
@@gutterg0d You're right about the listening environments people listen in but I respectfully disagree that the differences will be completely lost.
The people who'll have 10 seconds of attention span certainly won't look for compression sound lol
Yeah it sounds more like the Piano was a real piano playing in the room, rather than a recording of one, a really smooth recording at that (from the pug in). I notice the high mids on the Piano, and on the mix the lows/low mids and hi mids all seem to pop out a bit compared to the plug in, making it sound more alive for sure. I doubt on it's own it would make the difference between someone listening to a track or not, but as Wss says .... a lot of little things add up, so add this with a ssl console, a lexicon verb etc. etc. etc. and a song can really be transformed to sound like an actual performance is happening inside your speakers, rather than a recorded playback of one.
On the full mix I bet 95% of people wouldn't notice the difference in a blind test, and for the others which is preferred would basically be random.
Yes, but all little things will make a difference. The one you are not conscious about, but sounds better. On good monitors the difference is very clear. The analog unit is much better.
Do you even hear 20-400hz
On individual sources there was not that much difference, but always noticeable. On the whole mix it's night and day, specially how the vocals stand out when everything is compounded. The feeling of space on the mix is stellar, everything has a much more defined place in it, and the vocals really stand out.
Yeah, the difference is definitely noticeable. There is more space between the instruments somehow on the hardware but this doesn’t seem like a problem you cannot solve if you would extra plugins. The hardware sounds better but just a little bit better. This is gear for professional studio’s that can afford something like that. Very cool comparison. Lately I do think that this focus on hardware vs software or that we want to emulate old equipment so much that we maybe have to let it to, this is just a a small subject of the entire creative process. A lot of people will have never used a real Fairchild so if they can make a beautiful track with a plugin that is fine. What does it matter than the software perfectly mimics the hardware? As long as it can make your vision come true. Experienced engineers with access to hardware will have a reason to be puristic but outside of that I would not worry too much about it. This UaD plugin will get the job done.
To be fair, the Herchild is as much a Fairchild as the plugin is, meaning it's made to be "the same" but in reality it isn't. So who knows for sure which one is the best representation of the original equipment?
It's the little differences that add up in a mix....
Herchild’s tube creates kind of depth/ space to tracks, which is quite weird when tracks are summed together
Absolutely true! The depth in space is quite impressive and I can hear it well with my Adam A7x even with RUclips compression.
The UAD plug sounds “good”. The HerChild sounds beautiful.
As a mid-level studio owner I would say it’s worth $3,000 to $5,000 to me, keeping in mind the revenue my studio brings in and the budgets of our typical clientele.
If we had major-label album budgets I’d buy the HerChild in a heartbeat.
One day maybe. 🤷♂️
Search for Central - Ocean on your favourite streaming platform to listen to the full song that was featured in this video for the demo.
Nah.. This is more a commercial video for UAD, because the plug-in is absolutely fire! There was no differnce that is worth even a 1000,- Euros. Plug-In nailed it.
When you compare hardware unit and its digital counterpart, you always need to add a saturation stage in the digital version. Saturation is always provided for free in analog world. That way you can get a fair comparison since you will never need to add a saturator after the Herchild.
Any plugin trying to model analog gear should keep any artifacts/harmonics/saturation occurring with in/out trafos - especially since engineers are known to use various hardware with the compression switched out (LA2A's and Pultec EQ's come to mind).
@@judsonsnell I totally agree. But in real world conditions, it is never the case. The plugin version is always a lot cleaner/sterile which is not a bad thing especialy in mastering duties. I only wanted to show that people are looking for these "analog vs digital" comparison to make a purchase decision, and they might find less advantage to analog if they knew that they need to add a saturation stage to match exactly the audio level reduction (compression) and saturation level between an analog compressor and its digital counterpart for example. Digital is a different mindset, you have more control and resolution but you need to add more stages than analog mixing to achieve the sound in your head. Cheers.
Disagree here. The actual envelope characteristics are different right from the start. The piano is the ultimate test in here, because the envelope sounds totally different on the two. It was fairly ok on the others, but on the piano the UAD version did not make it, that's an instant bypass in my book.
@@bakerlefdaoui6801 If you ever wanted to, just source a couple of 1:1 transformers (Jensen JT-11, por ejemplo), hack two mic cables in half, and solder the leads to the appropriate places. Boom, instant analog transformer stage. You might need to work some resistance in to the path on output since what people generally want is the sound of the trafos being overdriven. Just shield the connections and keep the run itself short. They're sometimes referred to as "pigtail transformers" and I can name three or four mixers who have em around on their cable hooks.
@@TheHollermann I agree with you. The envelope is different. The digital versions of compressors always react faster than the analog (explaining the pumping effect), that doesn't mean you can't have a slower reaction from digital domain. You simply shouldn't copy the same settings on an analog unit and the plugin. Instead try to set different parameters to reach the same overall envelope. As I said before, digital is a different mindset, and in this comparison the optimal settings were done on the analog unit than replicated on the plugin, which will always favor the analog unit sonicaly. Try to do it the other way around and now you might end up with the Herchild sounding too slow with no transients left.
A) 2:56 Kick and Snare: The hardware sounds a way more raising the release of the drums. The plugin sounds a bit dead and tight.
B) 3:40 Drum room: Compared to the hardware the plugin provide some more heights about 7-10k
C) 4:38 Acoustic guitar: The Hardware does sound more transparent in the attacks and mids because of a longer release uplift time.
D) 5:48 Piano: The hardware does not floating in the single notes that much, but the difference is subtile
E) 8:47 Song 8:58 : The hardware produce ~2% more transparency?! But the magic happen in your own direct listening environment , not on YT.
2% transparency? Wtf dude u are a robot. 😂
nice analysis I can agree completely..
@@krinzologicstudio I heard only 1.7% more transparency.
@@jacobseal LoL, i can hear the difference too, ok to joke bout percentage, anyway i agree in general with @harryolive1853 the hardware sounds slightly better, in any case the audio character changes with source material but generally i feel more definition and organic sound on hardware …is magic.
I just did the same thing using the Stamchild MKII but with a little more aggressive settings than were used here. This really works! Every problem I had with ITB mixes went away. All of a sudden stuff blended much better, more punch, more clarity, wider, smoother, fuller. Blew away what I did with plugins. The plugins that seemed to hold up best for me were the Softube Mike-E and Molot GE. Mike-E for busses and MolotGE on vocal tracks. Hardware like this is 10x more effective as the mix stage as opposed to slapping it on an ITB mix later. Plugin compressors simply cannot touch the Stamchild or the Shadow Hills that I have. The Shadow Hills was once owned by Michael Brauer and has an early serial number(the early serial numbers are quite different from the modern production version I've been told by the company). Running every track through the Shadow Hills also made everything much better, similar result in quality to the Stamchild but different. My Shadow Hills settings were not that aggressive and that Nickel transformer boosts 10khz. I've tried slapping on Access Analog's Magic Garden chain or my own chain of Fusion, VSM-2, Shadow Hills, and Stamchild II onto an ITB mix and so far it has not given me the quality of a hybrid mix where I'm replacing plugin compressors with hardware. Or adding hardware compression onto tracks and busses where there was no plugin compressor used. I can only imagine the result I would get if I used more hardware at the mix stage. But this shows you could just get one good piece of hardware and record each track through it to achieve a tremendous result.
this is the best review you’ve done. Should be popular video. Even on tv speakers the hardware sounds better, it’s more apparent sound, more life and energy. It makes you melt. I’d sure love to afford one
Oh, man! Even with all that youtube compression and even through the phone the magic is being heard… analog version is brighter and smoother.
They both sound fine for the low level instruments. When the harmonies get loud the PI gets thin and phasey. The HW maintains its tone and seems to increase the tracks "energy"
To me it’s like the difference between butter and margarine (the Herchild being the butter). That unit has such depth and creaminess to its sound and I think it’s worth every penny. Still thinking about the Shadow Hills mastering compressor though.
I just played the sound through my 14-inch MacBook, listened to the whole mix with my eyes closed and recognised every single switch between the hardware and software versions. I was quite surprised at how clear the difference was. Compared to the hardware version, the plug-in version sounds, if not dull, then flat. Less open and less transparent. This may sound a bit exaggerated, but in the end it was clearly audible.
I would love to see a video of you using the hardware on multiple tracks, exporting your audio to the analogue world to use your hardware, and then re-recording the analogue output to the digital world.
Thank you for your great and independent videos.
The hardware definitely won but I was expecting that. I was surprised how well the software held up. The question is wether you could add other plugins to make up the difference. Maybe. It would definitely cost less the 10K. The main disadvantage the hardware has is the time it would take to run each track through the compressor and you can't easily go back and make changes. I am really happy you made this comparison. It is really important to hear what the differences actually are.
exactly what i thought, you got 2x conversion with „transformer sound“ with the hardware and most plugins don‘t emulate that input/output stage at all, in plugin doctor the uad curve is digitally stable, left & right channel line up perfectly, maybe put e.g. a Kazrog True Iron before and after the plugin to have a more realistic end2end comparison
Yes, I understand your comments. The separate tracks when tested were, as you said, slightly different however when combined were very noticeably different. Have you done similar tests between different compressor plugins?
This could be a good one for a follow-up
Speaking of the warmth is night and day between these two, and for the compression behaviour, Herchild is definitely more musical and invisible. But in the real life, you need 5 Herchilds to mix like this. Actually its a €50.000 vs €98 comparison. XD
True
True true
Enjoyed the Herchild much more. Smoother and warmer and quit more dimension. The plugin doesn't have the same depth and finished sound. Sounds like it still need something to round it off. Thanks for the cool video!
The hardware gives something to the music - which I really like. It's like a mechanical springreverb for a guitarist, even when a digital springreverb sounds allmost identical. It pushes the musicians slighlty like a little wind a sailing boat - while digital is without any wind from any direction. IMHO, as NO-mixing-guy - who just needs recordings from rehearsals : )
For better or worse, this is actually a significant vindication of all the hardware snobs. The plugin sounded colder and the effects were definitely cumulative across the mix. "Small difference" but precisely the type and quantity of difference that is usually touted. A brilliantly executed demonstration.
Great video all around. You obviously tookthe time to do this correctly. You very much succeeded!
And how good was that song?!?! Nicely written, performed, recorded and mixed.
I really enjoyed everything about this video. Thanks!
The front to back and space from the herchild is incredible! The plugin mix is great but sounds flat with no dimension. Great as always 🤘
Hope you try the Fairchild re-issue. It's actually cheaper than the heritage, with original parts (with some changes) The person at POM audio is one of the person known in repairing fairchild and have bought the name. He builds the fairchild based on the actual parts of the original. Its basicaly your official Fairchild
That is a massive difference. I've watched so many plugin vs hardware videos and even downloaded the m4a files and tried to level match them in Audacity. What hardware has that the plugins lack is the low frequencies that make you want to move and the smooth high frequencies that make you want to go start a moshpit, bounce off the walls, and whatever else. Plugins sound like a 128 mp3 with hardware as a lossless file. The plugins that get closest are the ones emulating the cleanest hardware pieces. If plugins are 75%, that 25% they are missing is the most critical. It's what allows the listener to feel something and connect with the music. I've got two outboard pieces: Fusion and Michael Brauer's Shadow Hills. I've yet to really use them on a mix. But on a master, they really add up. By themselves you think "that's better than plugins by a lot, but not tremendous". You put them together and then the magic starts to happen. Wider, smoother, deeper, clearer, and more exciting. The mix you did there with the Herchild was phenomenal. You could get by with just that piece and whatever reverb/fx you added. With plugins you are always fiddling around trying to make up for what they lack when no amount of skill can conjure those nonlinear things out of thin air.
The Stamchild MKII costs about half of that Herchild and supposedly sounds better than the other clones. That's the next thing I'm getting. I'd rather spend 10k on something like a Herchild than thousands on plugins and all this other stuff. A lot of places let you do payments too. Herchild is 36 months 0% financing at Vintage King last I checked. Not sure how credit works in Europe and other countries. This video could be used as a great infomercial for hardware. Plugins are ok if you just want to work with your own music or casual record people or whatever. What I'm curious about is what kind of result you could get on this song if you used some combination of less expensive hardware. You can get 3 or 4 things from Looptrotter and IGS for the price of a Herchild. Great video with a great song, this was really enlightening.
I think this is why analog summing is so appealing till this day. Is the sum of the little nuances that make a difference. Hope you can try out some other equipment from Heritage. Cheers
Bingo, i can hear the organig sound of the hardware that make magic everything…depend on source material
That upper mid sound on the piano was a pretty insane difference on the herchild, enjoyed it a lot. I don't know the correct word to describe it but it was really smooth and singy
Exactly what I noticed too, them upper mids just jump out and grab your attention! The plug in was actually SUPER smooth, but even in the high mid area, and I think in certain situations would actually work better (like smooth jazz etc). But for rock and power ballads etc. that live feeling you get from the fairchild box would be hands down better, although not sure 10k better. xD
Thoughtful content . The real hardware recorded version comes away with a smoother, thicker and more intimate feel and velvety well oiled bass . Very nice comparison thank you .
I can definitely hear the more open tone and nuanced transients in the analog version. Having said that, I tend to prefer the t-racks emulation over the UAD after comparing the two side by side. The real question is whether or not we are listening to the difference between analog vs digital or if the difference is one Fairchild to another.
This much I know... I'm not in a hurry to go spend $10k for what I could otherwise accomplish with an EQ. Thank you for the hours spent creating the comparison and video!
The additive difference across the whole song is so amazing! Little steps add up to an amazing journey. Great video!
Thank you for taking the time to do that. I keep saying, on 1 track you'll not hear the difference. Put anything across 200 tracks and it's drastically better! For instance 16 yrs ago I had a 192, can't remember if it was the Digidesign version or if we switched to the Avid at that point. Took my full PT session to a friends studio with an SSL9000J, and the very same 12 converted I was using. Ran every channel through the board with nothing on it(as that's how he had his rig set up) bounced it, and every track sounded 100x better. The lows where more solid and lower, the mids where in their section of the room, where as before (unmixed) they where not, the highs where more airy, less bitey and higher. All from running 42 tracks through an SSL 9000J console, with zero comoression, zero eq, and the exact same converters(converters 1000% change everything btw!).
Great unbiased comparison. My guess is that the UAD plugin is much closer to the unit it was based on, but to model that many tubes and get anywhere close is amazing.
In my opinion, the whole texture is lilbit different. But when you plug more things after it the slight differences will enormously appear on the track.
at 2:56 Massive difference in the dimension of the Herchild compared to the plugin at. How on earth do you only hear a "slight difference"
Wow that compressor sounds amazing.
I also think that the plugin is pretty well emulated. But what I almost always hear in each of these comparisons is the spatial quality, the "singing" caused by the unpredictable behavior of the harmonics and the 3D image that the electronics in the hardware provide. I can hear it in every single A/B test you made. Fantastic video by the way - as usual. I really like what you're doing...
even listening on regular speakers i hear the difference and is huge. hardware is warmer and rich
OMG, the mix on that unit sounds fantastic and has a creamy top-end of it´s own. Thank you very much for this comparison.
I closed my eyes for the full mix. Honestly couldn't hear the difference. The song sounds incredible and it's definitely not because of the Fairchild.
The difference between both mixes sticks out. The hardware unit produces audible depth and a warmer mix and the little details in the mix can be heard whereas the plugin mix has less of those live characteristics. I own a StamChild SA-670 compressor which has a bypass switch. I can just say that it is the King thanks to its ability to do wonders on any audio material even if I have other great compressors in my studio.
The way the full mix was so much better to my ears. Like not even close. The clarity and balance was really impressive. I use the plug in, and will have to keep using it however so I'll just need to throw a Massive Passive on it and sprinkle some additional magic 🤷🏻♂️👍🏼👍🏼
I hear a big difference in the hi hats of the drum tracks, much crispier on the hardware in a good way. I also heard some changes in the lows but that’s to be expected
AND snare. Masswive difference in my OLLOs at least
Just for the price comparison: The UAD website shows me the Fairchild Tube Limiter Collection (660 & 670) for 163 Euros. Includes both the Apollo Realtime & UAD-2 version and UAD Native (without hardware).
First of all, thanks for the great music! Love the song! 👍 And secondly: Your comparison shows a phenomenon I always notice when I mix tracks recorded with "very good" equipment in "very good" rooms vs. tracks recorded with "ok" equipment in "ok" rooms. The individual tracks often sound quite similarly good, the differences then show up in the mix. Most of the time I have to spend a lot more time and tricks to mix the "ok" tracks, while the "very good" tracks are relatively easy to mix. 😊
As always, analog gear sounds bigger, deeper and smoother/pleasent to human hears then thin plugins. To me the differance is huge listening on earbuds.
I think when it comes to mastering, it's definitely worth paying a dedicated professional especially with the thousands of £€$ worth of analogue gear I'll never be able to afford
On smartphone the difference is very small. So...
My favourite Vari-mu compressor is Process Audio Rockrupel Comp.Two. Because of its character. It's adds that real deal magic to your sound.
I'd describe the HW as smoother. On the piano in paricular, I thought I could detect a stepping-down sound on the release.
Beautiful subtle. The Stamchild calls me, too.
Thanks for the test, the Herchild sounds much better in the mix. More depth, more separation, more transients coming through and so on. Not strange since the analogue compressor seems good and UAD version, sell, I never use it because there are always better plugin alternatives.
I agree to your opinion 100%, especially "small differences add up and become huge" part. However, in practical situation I think there are quite a few engineers who are actually inserting Fairchild HW to every track that needs compression and printing them all in today's mixing. When mixing, most of them are using plugins despite owning HW anyways, for time-efficiency and stuff. If you think about this reality I'm not sure if it worth 10,000 euro.
Quite difference,analog unit has more movement,adds space while plugin have that bright digital sounding edge and constant mid presence.
Fairchild sounds 'smoother' and sounds like it has more 'pop' to the transients. The music breathes a bit more with analogue version.
maybe a/b with some thing like dbx 1066 so we can hear were 10k is justified ... otherwise back to 3630 :)
Great comparison. The final mix was the selling point for me. It seemed the stereo image collapsed on the plugin version, while the analog version was open and airy. Analog wins again!
There is a warmth to the Herchild but very small difference. On full mix.
Herchild definitely sounded better in context with the mix, I also did the test blind at first. The difference is subtle, and definitely does not justify the price tag.
On drums the hardware sounded good, but it's an eq thing, just richer lows from the physical unit perhaps? Much better on the acoustic, nice imaging, piano same - wish you'd compare it with DDMF Magic Death Eye - I would shell for the Heritage if I was in that economic league, from what I've heard here ;-) The mix sounds fuller. Great imaging with the Heritage - however, MDE might have been that much closer ;-)
theres a small resonance in the higher freq range with the uad plugin but all in all very similar.
Wow, on the first beats I notice a huge difference already. The analog unit sounds warmer, the plugin sounds a bit harsher. I'm writing this before reading other comments or watching the video, so I can't be somehow influenced.
The piano also sounds more natural and breaths more.
The width and warmth of the physical unit was nice compared to the plugin option… at time dramatically so. But now I need to run out and get the plugin!
The individual sections run through the hardware seemed more present to my cloth ears...the same with the full mix. I wouldn't sneeze at the plugin and would never contemplate the hardware due to cost. Nice song too.
The plugin was more smaller by sound on everything, or closer but not in a way of presence. The hardware brings out the oompf and space more, sounded really neat :) Now if I was a millionaire....
If you're in the top 0.0001% of music producers anything which improves your music by 5% is worth that $10,000. But for most of us it's just a luxury to have.
Maybe the difference, which I definitely heard on SOME of the sources, can be attributed to the fact that UAD modeled a vintage unit and the Heritage is brand new?
It's kinda weird. The hardware sounds more open and alive but I like the plugins version more on the final mix. Feels tight and more nowadays sound.
As always, you have what you get... in professional audio, a 10% improvement is 10 times the cost. It's up to you to decide if worth the money or not, but you can not say there is no difference: more depth and 3D sensation with the real analog machine, no doubt about it...
People always compare equipment or plugins with mixings. But Apparently, audiences never listen to mixings. What They hear is the mastered sound. So how much difference is still there after mastering?
What blows my mind is that all these companies like Herchild, Drip, IGS and even Toni at "Fairchild" now ($30k!!!) hawk $1k worth of wire, $.50 components, cheap tubes and a chassis for 10-30k, and don't even bother to mention Rein Narma, the man who designed this thing. Let's call them on it. They robbed someone else's design 1:1 and no one mentions the roots. The name was abandoned and so anyone with a soldering iron can say "gimme 10K" for something they have nothing to do with. Sheesh. No class. No thanks. The Narma family needs to stand up for their legacy and take this name back from these vultures. I will never buy a clone until the family is making money off the name just like Bill Putnams family (now multi-millionaires).
The plugin sounds a bit dry compared. The first thing you said was that the tails (only drums) were longer in the kick, for me it was the snare tails that caught my attention. Throughout the test I saw what the end result was going to be, the "warmth" of those tails became very obvious with the full mix and it was noticeable with every example, even the fifths of the piano sounded more in tune because of the slow release (I guess that's what it is). I am a musician with no knowledge or talent for engineering.
I heard the full mix comparison without looking at the screen and couldn't tell the difference at all.
Hi! I love your videos and have learned so much from you! Your non-biased reviews and opinions are gems! Could you please explain in short how you were able to have the one analog unit on 'pretty much every channel' of your analog mix, while you could literaly put one plugin per each track for the plugin mix? Thank you! Cheers
I printed the individual channel through the Herchild
Huge difference in the end … wow
Thanks for another enjoyable video. I too noticed the difference between the analog unit and the plugin. The analog compressor sounded better than the plugin.
But even if I had the $10000, I'm not sure it would be worth it just to get that extra edge.
The plugin still sounds great for a whole lot less!
but the settings are not the same...how can you compare them if you don't set them identical?
i defy anyone to tell me that 1 out of 1,000 music consumers would hear any difference much less believe that one is better than the other. I would love to own one and might even pay 10k for it but that would be entirely for my own satisfaction of owning such a beautiful piece of gear and for the joy of turning those giant knobs.
I need that input gain up. Got there in the end, massive difference by the end also. Analog tubes win again
I listened to the final mix with my eyes closed and could tell there was a difference although slight. The hardware unit sounds richer and more creamier if that makes sense.
i really would like one... but it costs more then my studio so... sigh
Listening here on my iPhone speaker. The first example kick and snare. Was actually a big difference. It just sounded much louder to me. Are the examples perfectly level matched?
the lyrics of the song should include : "This song is made with a 10 thousand dollar device !"
If you thin of the sound being in a 3D room, I think the plugin sounds a bit more contained in relation to the spread left and right and to the back of the space. Like while being equally upfront, the sound of the HW reaches more in the deep, away from the listener, if that makes sense. Probably not.
Seems like the hardware is like quite a bit better than the plugin for me. The front to back depth is INSANELY better. The hardware sounds 3D and natural and the plugin sounds like a sheet of paper and suffocated.
Surprisingly I prefer the plugin on the piano but the hardware on the drums and acoustic guitar.
Minor differences? I'm not usually biaised toward analog gear, but the Herchild sound so vivid and alive whatever the instrument or the whole mix you're comparing. It's so different I wonder if the volumes are really the same. Btw the plug-in sounds good though
I love Heritage Audio 🇪🇸 and I was thinking to get that Herchild compressor, but going to 10k for this unit makes me really think if that’s gonna do a major difference between the plug-ins versions.
the biggest difference seems to be in the stereo field... and I'm not really sure that I prefer hardware. For me it depends on what device you listen on... on DT770 I can't hear the difference at all in the full mix.
It would have been great to have heard the material in bypass. Because right now, listening to the full mix, I get the feeling that the mix would have sounded better without both the SW and the HW.^^
I listened to the TV signal.... nothing happened for me until the "everything done just with the compressor" mix/master. On a real test with good speakers the hardware wins (to my disappointment as a in the box mixing guy)
Very interesting, and I do like the sound of a Fairchild. As in the tube compressor, but not enough to buy a $10K super sized analog plug-in and space heater. However, that UAD plug-in sounded very close to the physical unit. Now that I'm adding to my wishlist.
To me there is a huge difference in the snare between the two..the hardware to me has an overall brighter sound...a bit of eq would solve this though i bet you could get it pretty close
For this song the difference sounds dramatic to me... Hardware pushes the mid part of stereo field a bit further and opened a sweet scene, it's not something that within a few simple steps you can do with plugins. UAD 670 is pretty good but this thing definitely worth the money.
the transients are tanned in a smooth way with hardware, creamy
I'd like to see this test with a match eq on each track too, to account for any minor eq differences introduced. & subtle touch of saturation maybe.
Yea brightness and transient control were dead giveaways on some of the sources, but it ain’t worth 10,000. It felt as the plug-in mix had less mid density.. which I find common in plugins emulating their hardware