@@WheelieMix yes I think so, but it has E style EQ option. But good point on the dynamics, I don't know how they differ between E and 9k... It's a great sounding plugin so I'd be very interested
@@ParlanceOpus Yeah the E/G option is also available on the AWS 900 (Super Analogue SSL sound) so that makes sense. No idea how the dynamics differ actually, good question!
If the reviewer tried to match the exact settings between the two (SSL Vs EMU), then that's the wrong approach. Better to try and match the sound of the SSL console with the plugin...can't do setting for setting...the board could have been modified, recapped..etc. Maybe that one channel of the board sounded really good, but what about the rest of it? I think on a mix of 30+ tracks, having each channel a bit different adds up to the entire analog feel. YES...Analog is still analog and hard to beat for sure, but I think for this example...it's a bit off.
I think I said in the video that I am aware of the calibration difference and that I didn't matched the settings but the sound (in the very first minute of the video and explicitly said that). I know about recapping and everything so I tried different channels of the desk everytime. To be honest it is a very well serviced desk so the differences were bearly audibles. So I matched the sound rather than the settings. Although for the compressor I tried my best to match the sound but it was just off even with totally differents settings or exact similar settings. Very good point mate ! And I took a very good care of respecting it, as much as I could. That's also why I don't do a lot of videos. It takes a lot more times to do videos like this one, in the most honest way possible than trying a plugin on a beat and saying : "yeah this compressor is dope" (not saying this is bad tho, just different). That's also why I don't have that much videos like this. It's freaking time consuming to do.
Wow, I didn't know that the bx_emulation is not even close - the real SSL sounds so much warmer and the piano feels like it hugs you. The emulation sounds sterile (in comparison) .
The Bx emulation is still very good don't get me wrong. I think they nailed the EQ at 99%. Of course it is really hard to compare as every channels, every SSL desk will be different. But the SSL EQ sound is here and well done. The only part I am not fond about is the dynamic. The compressor is less exciting for sure. The worst part being the gate, which sounds nothing like the SSL gate in my opinion. The SSL gate has this transients enhancement/excitement (which is probably not on on purposes) that the Bx don't have in my opinion. Overall it is a good plugin to have. I personally use. With N channelstrip too. But I tend to use the N more and more as when I use Bx channelstrip I favor the use of the EQ.
@@williamrobertson694 I'm sure it's usable - plug-in standalone sound-footprints vary like a color-palette - but the thing is that the SSL print is warm and fat/wide whereas the emulation sounds cold and very centered/narrow with less punch and that at the same peak level (it looks like)! I'm sure it can be useful but not the same way/case or as a replacement for the real SSL bottom end. You'd have to mix the SSL color/vibe/low mid-saturation and crunch with multiple plugins yourself which to me makes the emulation miss the its point. But if you (speaking in general) recognise/remember the plugin as another color in your palette I'm sure it works well but in a different scenario towards other goals. If you own more SSL-emulation plugins I'd love to hear see/hear more comparisons with other SSL-4000E emulations (especially console1). [If you don't own a Console1 one, you could send me your original tracks and the SSL prints as well as info about the settings and I'll resend you prints of what console1 sounds like with the same settings as well as prints of the settings matched by ear where I (try to) match their sound and hear if the console1 can create the same charisma with adapted settings. I'm really very interested in that comparison, because I love the console1's workflow but would love to know if Softube's emulation captures the vibe of a real 4000E-channel better/mostly/completely or is overall also rather different sounding and its own thing. This would be especially really interesting because SSL gave them their blessing for using the original name: SSL 4000 E. Not that all of this would be important :) but interesting it is!] - best regards and thanks for your great review!
I absolutely agree. It's usable but don't expect it to be what it's not : a real SSL. Well now that I think of it I only have the Bx_SSL and the Waves one (the first I had). I don't have the Duende (but it's not emulating a 4000E so it's fine). I might maybe do another test against them. On very easy and light mixs (like 5 stereo track or so). And see how it goes. If you'd like to participate for Console 1 that'd cool (and enlightening for me too :)).
@@WheelieMix I love to participate for C1! You'd just need to send me the before and after real SSL files with notes to the settings if you use EQ or Compression and I'll match the console1 and send you the edited files back as well as a version of tweaked parameters to match if they don't sound close.
@@synaikido I just AB_LM for mastering purposes or for mixbus when I want to check something. It is also useful for comparison of two different units. For instance when using the hardware insert on Pro Tools. It can bypass it without the usual glitch Pro Tools have when doing so. I very very very rarely use it for mixing (I think I just did 1 time to be honest).
Yes faster attack times (and sometimes faster release) generate more artefacts that software have more difficulties to translate (or somtimes does but with some aliasing applied). That's why I tend to prefer to smash things with hardware and doing slow and "invisible" dynamic control with software.
Hi again. I checked back and I got very good smacky results on a kick/snare loop with the plugins dynamic section with those setting: Dyn SC on, around 167hz (upper left SC) , Comp set to limit-mode + link, release around 0,10 - threshold around -10db, EQ everything on zero but ON, In-Gain +7,6 db, THD around -35...worked very well. You get an extra smack out of the kick, if you set the Compressors own SC-screw (little one) on an additional 60hz. The sound gets a bit tighter when "digital" is activated in the TMT/stereo section. Cheers
Yes I guess you can get some good results out of it of course. I often do, although I find that to "respect" the source as much as on the desk, I often have to back off the mix knob, otherwise it sounds too constricted in my humble opinion.
@@WheelieMix I think with every knob there is a source-contextual sweetspot, especially comp-threshold, input gain, THD and SC-options. If you try not to break up the material too heavily, you can go crazy with dynamic procession and get a huge smack out of it, but in the end it is a result made by many factors together. I am so curious to listen to an example from your SSL console again :) Yeah, I can imagine having much fun with a huge console in corona times... sing together: I can´t get no...desinfection, no no nooooo ;)
@@nichttuntun3364 Hahaha that's pretty much the vibe currently ! I am looking forward to mix on the SSL 4000 again (but this time it's gonna be a G tho').
Thanks for the video! After a couple of months using this plugin and bx SSL G, I've found that they need to be drive hard if your want that compressor spank and overall aggressiveness. You need to crank THD all the way up, also you need to activate the EQ, it gives saturation, especially sounds great before the compressor. I think it was somehow calibrated differently than other plugins. First I was kinda afraid to drive it like my other plugins because .. well, it's a plugin) it can alias or distort in an unpleasing way. But no... It behaves like a real desk actually. You just need to crank up the input a bit more
Hey ! My pleasure, thank you for sharing your very interesting experience. I pushed it hard at around 10mins. It was still quite far away from the desk imo. Do you think I should have pushed the THD instead of the input into the same amount of THD ? I may give it a try in a mix where I use it a lot (will have to dig deeper as I don't use it as much these days). Pushing the "THD ALL" to see what it does !
@@WheelieMix Hey! Well, in my experience, if i want that SSL aggressive push I just crank the THD all the way up, and 9 times of 10 i turn the input knob all the way up too. Also you need more aggressive compressor settings (like higher ratio, lower threshold) than on the real desk or other plugins. Of course you need to compensate the volume in the output section. Then it sounds real SSLish) I had to learn to forget about all the meters and just don't be afraid to push it. That's my experience anyway, I hope it helps 👍🏿
Also forgot to mention that activating the EQ does a real harmonics bump, Especially before the compressor, even if you don't EQ, just turning it on gives a real magic. Cheers!
@@DennisVeeMusic I will give it a try for sure !! I really like to push into the SSL 4000 myself, so let's see if I also like it that much with the plugin :).
@@WheelieMix I was kinda surprised that a plugin can hold that much input gain when I discovered it) Brainworx did a great job on emulating that console drive behaviour. But I learned it after like 6 months of using it)) One day I just tired that compressor sounds like a soft pillow sh*t and decided to slam all the drum tracks into the hell of this bx SSL)) and it worked great😂
Thanks for the review but I have to say it falls into the problem I see with a number of such things here on YT - the raise the volume to hear and understand what the speaker is saying and the music comes out way too loud.
Hello, thanks for the suggestion ! Well I was afraid my voice will be too loud compare to audios. But you're right I will make it a bit louder, it'll help to understand what I'm saying (accent doesn't help). Thanks for the suggestion !!
The accent isn't the problem because once I had the playback level up it's perfectly understandable. I listen to a lot of shortwave radio (I'm in the USA) so most accents aren't an issue. But like I said a number of people that do explanation or review videos having to do with audio work tend to not have their voice levels up compared to the music levels. Then again RUclips isn't the best for audio quality anyway ;)
Good to know my accent isn't an issue haha ^^. Yeah RUclips kind of compress everything down and sometimes screwed the balance a bit (I'm pretty sure other youtube video had been victims of that too). Anyway it's definitely a perfect balance to find and I will give it more attention to it thanks to you know ;).
Thanks for the great video. Because of my background using mixing desks I enjoy using good channel strip plugins when they might help. I have 3 bx channel strips: SSL-E, SSL-G and Console N. An A/B comparison of the E channel is very helpful for me, thank you! PS - so disappointing about the compression section. The eq is great, but without the quick grab of the original dynamics section, the plugin doesn’t get that lovely, edgy grit. Hitting the input harder does help (I think more so on the G). I use bx_console N fairly often. I’d love to see a review on it. I’m going to pickup their Focusrite channel. I can A/B that one with my ISA-430! Thanks again! Best wishes - Tim
Thanks a lot Tim for your encouragement ! Indeed the dynamic section is a bit disappointing. That's what I prefer on SSL 4k desk haha ! I have Bx_N, although I never used the Neve VXS (only VR and 88R). So I got no point of reference :/.
Same here! The N console has a pretty big sound to it, but there’s a lot in there to work with. It took me a little while to really learn it. I’ve never even seen the Neve console they modeled! One thing I look for in a channel strip is that it adds its character to the sound just by plugging into it. After all that’s what great hardware does.
@@timbranniganmusic3458 Very true, although not a big fan of all the Bx console coloration when putting them on all tracks for example. I invite you to try this and properly level-match. Results can be quite surprising.
WheelieMix That’s an excellent point and I know you’re correct. Gain staging reveals the truth. It’s too easy to be fooled by even a decibel or two of level.
I loved your review! I was thinking of trying the same plugin you tried it with towards the end! And yes I agree the waves is closer in comp section but a bit harsher diff.
Thanks man ! Yep Waves has a nice dynamic section but the EQ need a little update it's a definitely trashier (in a good or bad way, it's up to you). But I've heard a new channelstrip is on its way (by Sonimus) and that gives me really high hopes to have finally an SSL channelstrip where the Dynamic section AND the EQ will be both nailed !
WheelieMix yeah! I have lots of Plugin Alliance plugins. Some of them I regret purchasing. I own the old Bx E and G and the new ones. They sound good and could get the job done. But I guess they cant really do a 1 to 1 emulation of the SSL. Anyway I love Sonimus' TuCo! What an amazing compressor, but I always use it with a mix knob. Sometimes the color is too much. I did not try the Stone4k yet. Im not amazed with satson too. Bx TMT is better for me. Sadly, if only Bx could nail the dynamic section, it would be the perfect channelstrip!
1 on 1 emulation is not my goal personaly. But at least getting it to sound as the desk I used. And here on hard compression settings it doesn't. Indeed if they nailed the dynamic it'd be perfect !!! By the way Sonimus Tuco with an attack time would be my favorite too. Maybe one day ^^.
Great comparison - except you did not use the bx integrated THD !!! Can you make a follow up video and compare that drum section with the SSL desk and the bx WITH the "THD" turned up - please ???
Hey man ! In fact I remember saying in this video that I tried to push the THD but it wasn't helping that much. It's already in here but in its default position. They nailed the sound of it but the dynamic section is still not quite there (especially the gate). And in that cass THD didn't helped :/. Anyway we noticed with a friend that the dynamic section is closer to the desk if I don't use the fast attack engaged at all. It sounds way closer to the desk dynamic section that way. Other than that the gate is still not there as I said. Feel free to ask any questions if you still feel that I didn't gave the answer you were after :) ! Thanks for your kind word of encouragement and your smart criticism !!
Thank you for your feedback ! So it's very interesting what you say - that you got closer to the desk by not engaging "fast" attack and also that THD did not really help. That is dissapointing, I had really hoped they nailed it but your test audio clips Don't lie. Did you try any of the other Brainworx channel strips , like SSL 4000 G or the N console ? Then, I also have the Brainworx 4000 E and G BEFORE they released it with the "official" SSL modifications. They changed the dynamics section claiming they worked together with SSL engineers to make it official SSL. So the previous release sounds really good to my ears but I Don't have a SSL desk to compare here. One more question if you Don't mind… which compressor plugin gives you the most "punchy" and "alive" sound ? what compressor plugin would YOU use if you did not have the SSL desk ?
Oh, and one more thing - Brainworx came out with the "Townhouse" compressor and they claim that it's a good fit to go with the SSL 4000 E... I was just wondering if you had a chance to try out this compressor plugin and what you were thinking if this could be used to give that "punchy" and "alive" sound which you were missing from the console plugin when compared to your SSL 4000 E desk ?
I have the Bx_N. I love the EQ on it and the THD too ! The previous dynamic section of the SSL plugins was further away from the desk if I remember well. It's especially the gate they misses IMO. It sounds like a normal gate to me almost. Whereas SSL channelstrip gate are way different and can be used as transient shaping tool compare to some normal gate for instance. Waves did nailed that part IMO. Hmmm really hard to say. It depends if it's for slamming things or not. I've found that for slamming stuff the Overloud SSL is surprisingly good. As their 670. But they seem to alias like crazy which is a bit of a shame IMHO. Fot subtle compression I like Novatron by Kush. Or the Softube TLA100A. I've made a comparison of it vs the Summit hardware and I was blown away how close they were. That made me wants to buy it straight away as the TLA100A is one of my favorite compressor in the studio.
@@prussitotoiprussitotoi4713 By the way, Townhouse won't sound like a SSL Buscompressor from the desk since it's the first iteration of the compressor in a rack format. It is way dirtier and saturated that the one from the desk. So the comparison won't be fair :). I didn't tried it yet as the price is still too high in my opinion right now. But with a little bit of patience, I think that the price will go down during sales more and more as new plugins will get released.
Thanks for doing this.....super interesting to hear.....the upper part of the kick's pitch changes with the real thing? Extra odd harmonics? it sounds like it moves up a major 2nd or so. Pretty interesting how tough the dynamics sound on the real thing. I have never used a real SSL, but use that BX a good bit and kinda like the compressor, but I have never loved it for room mics. Still prefer the trusty 1176
Hey, I am glad it was useful to you :). Yeah, the harmonics shift, the EQ probably it's hard to really know PRECISELY why it happens imho. But yeah the original SSL dynamic is super fast and punchy as hell. So great for snares and kick. And if you combine this with clipping the desk a little bit, it sounds even better imho.
By the way, OvertoneDSP had a version of the SSL that sounds closer then all of them as they were the engineers from SSL. SSL stopped them from selling it.
I've heard that indeed, but since it is not on sale I have no way to have access to it. I would be curious to see if it holds up against the desk. Thx for commenting =).
The hardware sounds so alive... After finding this and other videos around youtube about the (not so coveted) ssl channel compressor, I decided to throw a shootout video comparing the dynamics of the bx_SSL 4000 E, the Waves CLA MixHub and the OverTone DYN4000. @WpNs Interestingly, the DYN4000 seems to have a very nice grab. Thanks for the useful video!
My pleasure dude thanks for the kind words ! Yes software have still some improvements to make regarding compression IMO. I'll def check your video right now !
I get that the dynamics aren't quite right, but plugins tend to do better at more average settings. By using the fastest times you exposed a weakness......You may have had much better and somewhat more comparable results, had you just dialed then in at moderate real world settings.....similar-ish settings, but dialed in for taste on each one....and avoid the fastest settings....especially attack.......dial in to taste. I love True Iron.....awesome plug
@@WheelieMix You are probably right....that moment stuck out and I was multitasking....my bad, in that case...... Analog mojo compression in general, is the trickiest part to get close n the box....
Of course the hardware will be better! It has a lot more processes going on under the hood which is impossible to encapsulate with mathematical functions. But try to compare hardware with Acustica Sand plugin which is based on IR technology. Its a lot closer to hardware in terms of space, depth and color.
Thanks for your comment ! Yes but there is also a lot of things happening under the hood of a plugin (maybe a lot of more because of the issues it can generates). But yeah it's super hard to model the non-linearities of material stuff haha. I won't compare it to Acustica SAND for few reasons : - Acustica SAND don't have the channel dynamic section, so the comparison won't work. - Acustica is too much of a CPU Hog for me (a channelstrip need to be used as much as you want, it won't be the case of SAND). Yes Acustica sounds great but they still creates artefacts related to plugins sometimes (quantization errors, aliasing etc...). But they did a great job. I just wish I could just buy one compressor instead of a whole bundle ^^.
That’s such a fallacy that digital math can’t emulate hardware. It all about nonlinearities and computational power. Sacrifices are made and nonlinear systems are modeled with linearity to not be cpu intensive. As processing power has grown over the last two decades plugins have gotten better and better. Guitar amp modeling is a good example. As processing gets faster over the next two decades and modeling takes advantage of it, they will continue to improve. If plug-in makers start faithfully modeling the input impedance and reactance of hardware and coloration of old A/D converters, the differences will eventually fade. However, since many fantastic albums were made on analog gear and many fantastic albums have been made completely ITB, I’m not sure it isn’t a moot point. It’s the pianist the matters more than the piano.
Well, pushing the THD will add saturation, harmonics and transients taming. It will not, unfortunately, transform the compressor in a way that it could match the desk at least a little bit. Also it saturates all the sound (THD doesn't impact only the compressor as you already know) so it put it even further from the desk from what I tried =).
Thanks for this excellent video :) Great to hear this compared against the real hardware. I have the BX and Waves so will use BX for EQ and TMT and Waves for dynamics. Not ideal but since I don't have a real SSL 4000 desk this will have to do. Did you ever compare the hardware against Acustica SAND?
Hi ! Thanks for the kind word mate that's nice ! I am glad my comparison was useful. Yeah using the Bx and Waves dynamic could work, I did that too, but it's a bit annoying to do still. Otherwise I use the desk when I can :). I didn't compare to Acustica Sand for multiple reason because : - Acustica are a pain to download for trial. - Acustica are not stable yet. Can make a session crash or harder to recall (happened to me with Acustica Crimson). - Acustica are CPU Hog, no point having an SSL channelstrip to only using once or twice. - Acustica Sand don't emulate the channelstrip comp. In fact their SSL channelstrip is kind of a frankenstein one with the Gbus Comp into it. Or what I like about SSL Channelstrip it's the dynamic section of it. The EQ is nice and convenient but to me what makes a SSL Channelstrip special is really the dynamic section. Which Acustica haven't (if I'm not mistaken), so the comparison will be wrong. - Acustica have a strong marketing on how they plugins are supposedly superior to algo plugins. Marketing maintained by a strong fan-base stating that Acustica are unique, fantastic and THE ONLY ONE capable of recreating hardware sound (and that algo plugins are for boys). But what's happening under the hood is still some weird plugins shit sometimes so I'm not that much interested in a brand proposing items that are workflow killers and still have plugins artifacts. That being said, Pink2 and Magenta are ticking me, but since downloading the demo will require me to download 1 Go of stuff, I'm not sure I'll have the time to try them.
The reason I asked was because I also agree with Marek that the hardware sounded more open and wondered how it would stack up against SAND. I have SAND and agree there are some trade offs for their magic hardware sound and it doesn't have a channel compressor only on the buss. Unfortunately I don't have a real SSL 4000 desk to compare it against SAND and if I did I probably wouldn't need the plugin then unless I wanted to save on my electricity bill ;)
Yeah maybe SAND is better, but I don't think that much because BX is really close (except for the dynamic section). But again, if I can only use a few SAND in a sessions, it doesn't worth it to me :/. Also believe me, Acustica sound great, but they still sounds and react like plugins, there is no magic behind it (still some weird stuff happening under the hood sometimes and those things adds up with a multiple tracks session). If downloading a trial of Sand was quicker (and also if using it was quicker) I'd maybe be give it a go, but unfortunately I barely have the time for that, sorry :/. I can still send you the SSL processed track and the raw tracks if you wanna play with them ? I will be happy hearing the results. Also having a desk is primarily to RECORD audio. Which Acustica can't do haha. So yeah having the desk ONLY for mixing is a bit of a luxury (you really need to being able to afford that). But for recording, a desk is super convenient (also for mixing is way more fun, but again need to afford that fun haha ^^).
Excellent video! I wish I would have seen this before I bought BX-4000E I wonder what life would be like using the dynamics from Waves and the EQ/THD from BX? Have you come across any other SSl E style compression that is closer than both waves and BX? Slate FG-401 is supposed to provide some SSL dynamics flavour, it would be interesting to try it out against Waves & BX. I would also agree that the background music while you are talking pulls attention from my ears, and my muscle memory is compromised because of it; I am really enjoying your videos, nonetheless, brother!
Hey thanks a lot, that means a lot to me ! Yes I have reduced/deleted background music from now, lesson learner ;). Well, I haven't found an SSL dynamic emulation I like for now. The compressor from the desk is very unique IMO. Apparently the new PA J is closer but I am highly doubtful. The FG-401 I never felt it sounded like the SSL compressor and never really understood the statement behind this. FG-401 mode 1 sounds just like a passage VCA compressor to me.
@@Mansardian Haha indeed that's what I think too. I do like the guy, he is a amazing. Marketing and advertiser gurus but amazing. He also seems very respectful to anyone online (which is not the case of some other CEOs in the audio plugins world...).
nice review, wish vmr could be a universal standard and all other devs could make 500s for it...pretty much like the api thing with the real hardware...workflow would be much easier...you could take the eq from bx's ssl the comp from waves and so on...the bx4000 could be easily broken down to 4 individual plugins so you could pick your insert points with a other plugins....the saturation on cla mixhub is epic by the way
Haha I think it won't happen tho. But I would love, for instance, PA to makes a channelstrip where you can combine EQs from one and compressor for another. For instance, I much prefer the Bx_N EQ but prefer the Bx_E dynamic section. I also prefer the Bx_N THD. I have a gave a look the CLA Mixhub, to me workflow wise it is similar or a bit different. It sounds to me like a product to sell dreams to home-studioists. As mixing on a desk, to me, doesn't feel like this at all. You still have only one mouse doing other thing at a time haha. But yeah I think it is the beginning of something that can be great.
Hi Wheelie! You've done some cool videos, but I was curious what sample rate you're using. When I've converted 88 or 96 sessions to 44/48, I notice big changes. I've heard that most plugins need to run at 88/96 just to get in the ballpark of the hardware. If you're using 44/48 like most people, I'd be curious to see what you think when running the plugin at 96. Thanks for the great work
I don't mix at 96khz most of the time except when the artists request it (which already happened). But when it happened I don't remember thinking : "Wow this is different, this is a lot better". It is maybe a bit better indeed. But sample rate has to considered to me, in a more practical way : Why choosing this sample rate ? (I chose 48khz because it is broadcast standard). Why not choosing the other sample rates ? (44.1khz is not broadcast standard and forces me to re-encode for some publishers, 96khz is too CPU intensive and takes too much space in my drives). Of course if I mix for a CD 44.1khz will be required. It all depends on the project. But I think it is the job of the plugins dev to make their plugins sound great in any sample rate rather than the job of the engineer thinking "ho maybe I should open this project a 192khz, because my plugins will react better.". I even mixed stuff at 88.2khz recently haha. It all depends on the artists.
Ah, I just mean for comparison purposes, I'd be curious how things would turn out. I notice a real loss of depth, headroom, and high freq detail whenever I convert an 88/96 project to 44 or 48 and I use the BX SSL E on just about every track. I'm pretty sure it was in the Gearslutz plugin analysis thread where everyone was just talking about how upsampling really isn't the same thing as running the plugins at a higher rate naturally. So, it may not be possible to get a plugin to its full potential at 44/48 or even at 88/96 since most UAD runs at 192(it may have been Andy from Cytomic that said 96k should be sufficient for most things though). Satin I think converts itself to 384k. Today's budget cpus can handle 96k if you get a Ryzen 1600 or something else that has around 100 single core and 1000 multicore points on cpu.userbenchmark. Hardware I think runs at the equivalent of an unlimited sample rate unless it's digital. Two of the best plugins ever are pure digital ports of the code; The Softube Weiss and the UAD Neve DFC. Some of UAD's analog modeling might be the best out there. Their Distressor sounded almost exact in a comparison video and others have said the SSL Bus Comp from UAD is pretty exact too. I think the BX SSL E is a lot better than UAD's new SSL though. My idea is to try to get to some kind of objective truth as to what plugins are really capable of and if current computers can really push the limits of what's possible. It may end up being true that plugins will only be able to pull off miracles in 10 years when AI makes Gulfoss and Smart EQ2 look like primitive toys lol I found your channel doing research on the VSE-2. To me, it sounds really clean if you set it that way, but you were saying it's redundant compared to other eqs and it feels a bit limited for the price they want. My main channel eq is the one on this BX SSL E. Then maybe I'll use Museq, Dangerous Bax, Stoneq4k, or Pro Q2. On the master I can get a bit more diverse but usually try to do most of the heavy lifting with the Neve DFC. What other eq would you recommend I try out if I like the VSE-2 but want a bit more options? Thanks again.
@@viciousblissvideos It makes sense because oversampling is different algorithm possible where just using a project at 96khz is well... 96khz. But just because you tickled my curiosity I'll make a song at 96khz, and maybe use to demo a plugin. Although I'll need to be careful not having a 150 tracks session or my computer won't be able to make it and record the video at the same time haha. If Satin is doing what you said, then it's a very clever plugin and others should get inspired from it. Funny you told UAD as I don't plan to buy any of their plugins at all. Because they destroyed the interest of a plugins : Portability. You always need to have hardware with you (Satellite or Apollo Twin). It's ridiculous, especially in 2019. Whereas they did released a UAD Solo Laptop which looked like a USB dongle but it is discontinued. If one day, UAD will make their DSP chip portable as a USB dongle I'll consider them. Also their DSP is a joke, their new SSL plugins take a lot of processing power it is plain impossible to use it on more than 12 tracks. Their DSP chip is stuck in 2008... When you look at the price of the plugins and their hardware (which are as overpriced as a Macbook Pro can be) and the strong customer basis they got, I think they could make some efforts. But they won't, precisely because despite all those flaws they still got a huge customer basis, a lot of fans and they have a very very very strong branding and marketing team which knows how to make humor and gearporn singing together. All of this endorsed by mixing engineer/producers that basically act like salesman and at the same time give audio courses where they used... guess what... UAD plugins. And they do that very smartly exposing sometimes how this UAD plugins is amazing. And I don't even talk about some RUclips channels that have huge base of followers and that when they demo a UAD plugins, are going way overboard in compliment... Well as you see UAD is a big subject for me haha ^^. Anyway, the VSE plugin is darn unique. It would have been less expensive, I'd have buy it right away. Because it's not sexy or impressive and can be quite limited. But it sounds very very good. One very important aspect for me about EQ, and which sometimes we forget, it's how they RESPECT or handles transients. This, makes the difference between any copy of a Pultec and an original Pultec for instance. Or like in my FG-A vs API 550A (from the 70s) video where you can hear how the hardware preserves a lot more and almost enhance a little bit the transients in comparisons with the plugin. And regarding this the VSE plugin left me a very good impression. You already have an amazing collection of EQ. Some that I share with you (Museq, StonEQ, Pro Q2, never been with the BAX, it's just a baxandall EQ ^^...). So Museq is definitely a good option. I use it a lot for specific tasks (mixbus, brightening a sound without makes it horribly harsh, drum buss for whatever reasons I like it here). Pro Q2 is an amazing EQ for workflow. And I'll finish this super long message by mentioning a plugin I discovered yesterday called LVC Audio TonedMax. Which is basically a Pro Q2 workflow (kinda) packed with analog emulation, transformers etc... For it looks darn cool as I always wanted an EQ like this (Waves H-EQ was a good beginning). I tried it and loved it but I need a bit of time to see if I still like it after few days (you know the honeymoon period haha).
@@WheelieMix I got the UAD because time is running out on this profession. Tech is something I've tried to follow due to how everyone was caught offguard by Napster and things like that. If you've never heard of Ray Kurzweil or a site like Fanatical Futurist, there's tech coming in the next decade with insane capabilities. If AI passes the Turing Test by 2029, things will be mixing themselves before then. There's a lot on UAD that's the best out there. Ocean Way, Distressor, DFC, 1176, Helios, 224, 480, and the AMS RMX. But the platform itself is kinda ridiculous because of the dsp limitations. The only things you can run a ton of are the Precisions, Cambridge, and Harrison basically. And they told me my Octo using 10% of cpu across all cores on its own is normal, so it actually degrades cpu instead of boosting its capabilities. For me, those UAD plugins I listed are the best they have and I wouldn't replace them with other things they offer. My hope was that the UAD would boost my system's single core capabilities by freeing up the resources I would've normally used on cpu intense plugins. The good part is that the UAD enabled me to deactivate combos of plugins I needed to use to get anywhere near what the UAD stuff achieves. I'm finding I like the VSE-2 better on busses than on the master or pre-master. I'll need to do more comparisons to see if I prefer other eqs. For sessions, I try to keep the track range around 45 max and have a few auxes. That pushes the limits of what my overclocked Ryzen 1700 can do with a UAD octo satellite.
Bx console compressor sounds terrible. But how about disabling the comp and using townhouse after it? Edit: I just did the test myself, too different… what I found is… 1. They may have recently improved the algo in the Bx as it’s not currently that bad( testing with slow attack tho). However combing a waves ssl dynamic section with the bx EQ is magic. If you then add a townhouse after that combo it’s just killer.
Hey Robert ! To be 100% honest. From what I saw. I find the SSL Six to be very gimmicky and overpriced. It seems to include stuff in it to attract home studiost : SSL Gbus Comp (but with very minimum settings which, to me, makes it less useful), "summing possibilities" (SSL are amazing desks, but never really had the reputation to be amazing summing devices), SSL EQ (which is certainly from new digital SMD desk and not a "old" 4k era EQs) etc... Again most of this is assumptions. But I have the feeling that it is a more way to conquer new markets with homestudiost which are highly sensible to marketing magic fairdy dust and "iconic names" (due to a lack of financial means, experiences, knowledges or all of the 3 at the same time). Don't get me wrong. I love SSL stuff a lot ! But yeah... haha.
The EQ is ok, basically this is only a frequency curve editors so no magic here as they emulated the curves well. But the compressor needs more input to work well, 6db or even 10db and then it gives similar results, as you proved it later with the kick it needs more than 10db all together. Even then it has different knee curves and treshold point but the difference is small. It seems that Waves did the compressor well in MixHub and EV2, but they do not plan to oversample their plugins so this is a bummer. Not that bx oversample much, it moves from 2x to 4x, but even that is better than nothing.
Hey, thanks for chiming in ! Actually there are much more things into play in the EQ than just "frequency curve editors". As an EQ can add saturation, have non-linearity, but even more importantly the phase response and magnitude is what makes or break an EQ (or what makes it special sometimes, like the messy phase of an EQP1A). I agree the dynamic wasn't there. I wasn't able to use the new EV2, as it is not supported by my OS. But, to be 100% honest, I don't think oversampling is the solution. Actually, sometimes oversampling can be detrimental (because it's badly coded, uses weird filters or dithering). But it's good to have the option indeed!
@@WheelieMix Ah, oversampling is just to tame down our OCD, most of the time we do not hear it, but when thinking about the oversampling I have FabFilter in mind, they simply do everything well. 👍 I always called those emulations a preset plugins as you are limited to what the design allows and I always argued how FabFilter Pro Q3 is much more capable. While this being true from a technical perspective there is something powerful in limiting yourself so I now understand better those "crippled" emulations as they often prevent you from doing some weird stuff that Pro Q3 allows. The lack of experience and knowledge I guess. As for the EV2, basically it sounds the same as MixHub, or very similar. They have the same preamp saturation and the same dynamics, or very similar. Somehow I like the old Waves SSL E channel with the Saturn 2 before it and Warm Transformer algorithm. 👍 🖖
@@BojanBojovic Hahaha yeah, OS matters if it's done well and used on plugins that saturate/distort a lot. UAD upsample like crazy their plugins, and it works very well. Yes I agree, that's maybe why I am quicker when I mix on the SSL. No 20 bands to mess around, just get it right and move on. And most of the time I much prefer the result haha ^^. The original Waves SSL has a great snap in the dynamic section, especially the gate !!
The desk definitely sounds a bit more open in the top end and a bit thicker. Width feels roughly comparable. All in all though, I would argue that the bx console is one half of the same coin really
@@WheelieMix Thank you! I do agree with you there. I've learned to work around it, but It would be nice to get a bit more oomf out of the plugin like the desk does. I feel like their new J series captured that a bit better. I haven't used Waves in forever, from what I remember they captured the dynamics a bit better. Everything else about the Waves strip doesn't compare even half as well as the bx though, which is why I switched.
Good question. I got a few stuff that Acustica Emulated. Heard that it's not their best product (GML 8200, Culture Vulture Phoenix). For SSL I can give it a ttry but I have to confess that Acustica stuff is sometimes a bit weird with all ttheir options (Sand for instance) and damn the demo is heavy for the hard drive. Although Acustica have strong limitations (Aliasing, Impossible to push them to the red etc...). Few of them I pointed out in my El Rey. + the CPU hits that makes me wonder if they worth it for me. That without mentionning they realeased and are currently selling plugins with few flaws (echo bug for instance). So I am not fully into it. Core 13 is better but I am waiting for them to develop more stuff with Core 13 I could compare to my pieces of hardware.
WheelieMix because your SSL channel work only on one audio signal per channel. Your mac cpu work on many other things like daw....latency....mouse...monitor...maybe wifi..and other. The pro tools DSP work only on plug in informations. Surely the SSL is better, but the comparison it will be more correct. This is not the truth...only my opinion. What do you think?
@@robe972 If you process a track through 1 plugin and process the same track through the same plugin but with 10 app running in the background, the results would null. Which is to be expected, so hopefully ti does not impact the sound quality.
Hey. Tbh the video was released before SSL Ch2. So I cannot say. But having access to an SSL 4000G atm, I don't really care about plugins. Although the UAD one felt very very close. So I might be curious to try the SSL Ch2. BUT! The SSL Ch2 is emulating a 9k, not a 4k, so not really comparable so to speak. And one of my favorite thing about SSL desk is to overload them. Which I don't think the SSL Ch2 is focused on. As they emulated a much cleaner desk.
@@WheelieMix There’s the E button that supposedly models the 4000E desk. Saturation was supposed to be included but in the newest model.ñ plugin, the 4KB. It’d be awesome for those of us who haven’t experienced the desk itself to get your opinion on it 🤗🙏🏽
Hey ! Sorry I have no idea yet as I am not really interested into this plugin. I don't like the workflow of it. But I hope they kept their findings of the SSL Channelstrip and putted it in the CLA plugin with some improvements. Because they nailed the gate very well and the compressor is also one of their best. I sometimes only use the Waves plugin for its gate/comp and Bx for EQ (I know it's a bit silly).
@@WheelieMix HI there. Are you aware that you can use the CLA Mix Hub as a single (normal) plug in? It is considered to be a updated version of the original Waves SSL. People are not aware of this and it is really a shame. To me, the CLA Mix single plugin is the closest thing. You should give it a chance. :) all the best. Thank you.
@@lydfar2392 Hey ! Indeed it is possible (with the bucket mix window thingy). I'll try it if I find the time for sure ! For now I got too much work to do on the big mother ^^.
amazing all the crap you take for uploading this wonderful, useful video, wheelie :) think you could get any closer to that drum crush by using a slower release time on the plugin? release sounds faster to me. you must have tried it. how did it sound?
Hey ! Thanks for the kind words man, I am happy it is useful to you :). I tried but it wasn't that close, it sounded more "choked". Which is, well logical so nothing wrong with that.
@@WheelieMix I was able to get a lot closer with 10 plugins, the compressors being Waves E Channel (400ms release), Korneff Talkback Limiter and TDR Kotelnikov. A few EQs and a few transient designers plus a limiter doing 5 dB of GR at the end to match the peaks. The real SSL still had more focus in the mids, the plugins were less muscular/defined through the middle and a bit brighter. The brainworx sounded like super fast release distortion, which is cool but obviously a totally different sound. Gotta love hardware compressors!
@@dirkchurlish4074 Hehe that reminds me when I tried to imitate the Thermionik Phoenix. I used 3-5 plugins but it wasn't that great in the end ^^. Yep hardware have good points too :).
It'll be interesting as it is brand new but unfortunately I will just be able to compare the EQ and saturation. As the Sonimus ChannelStrip compressor is not the SSL Channelstrip compressor but the "Bus" compressor in the summing section of the desk. So it'll make the comparison inadequate :/.
@@15bleach51 And even think the EQ from Sonimus is an hybrid design between Brown and Black EQ from what I've read from the manual. So apart from the saturation nothing could be compared to the real desk I am afraid :/.
The real one sounds more open. The bx sounds dull and a little bit lifeless. To me it seems like plugins can’t emulate real hardware today. The result for me, take a good parametric eq, like Tb eq4 and you’re done with digital EQs. For colouring the sound take one of the millions saturator plugins afterwards. Thanks for that.
I think the EQ here is really nice. It's more the dynamic section that left me disappointed. For coloring I like True Iron (if I agree with the little phase rotation it imparts). I was surprised by it.
After years of ignoring it I downloaded NI's Solid-Series. Have to say: the dynamics section might be closer to the real one than brainworx's plugin. It sometimes is the hidden gem that is going to surprise you.
You're hearing it right. The NI Solid Series were coded by Cool Stuff Labs, the talented group behind Kush's UBK-1 plugin and EI Arousor among many others. I agree with you, they sound killer and as good as anything BX has done in the SSL department. The Solid Series compressor comes uncannily close to my hardware Smart C2.
drums comp smash test is a greatest way to show diff between hardware and software ...like this test ruclips.net/video/vEy-DQALy3I/видео.html :))) but like your video before, you can fix this huge diff by diff settings , by saturator or adding compressor that will be smash , that why i use a lot of softube plugins..they all have insane saturation and "smash" against most of plugins in market! p.s. brainworx eqs is most "clean" in market (that why uad buy and resell brainworx plugins + softube plugins) i seen alot of really great guys using brainworx for postmix only (even mastering) and never for pre
Yeah I think Brainworx have mastered the art of digital EQ. Plugin Alliance have some amazing EQ collection. Compression wise I'm less convinced but I didn't try them all of course. Anyway here, the dynamics sounds good but nothing as punchy as the SSL is. IMHO.
When u level matched the difference was very subtle, in conclusion stop reviewing if u wont do justice and fairness in comparison. so disappointing,louder is not better only if u matched the levels.like on instant within this clip, the kick from bx and console did match up and only a slight difference.
So you said I level matched (which I did) but didn't do it justice ? I can't see your point here my dude =). When comparing and level matching as close as I can I think it is fair. Louder is not better indeed, that is why I level matched... For the kick I found the difference too big so I pushed with a trim BEFORE the plugin to see if it could makes it sound closer to the desk. But I first started without it to show you the difference.
Ce test est complètement inutile sans les fichiers de calibrations qui servent à calibrer le plugin par rapport aux mesures effectuées durant les mesures...
Comme explicité dans la première minute de la vidéo : Les résultats seront différents car ils n'ont pas émulé la même console avec les mêmes convertisseurs que ce que j'utilise. L'idée étant de voir si la vibe générale et le comportement global est bien respecté ou non. De plus chaque SSL sonnera légèrement différentes par rapport à une autre. C'est pour ça que je le précise dés le début. Maintenant si tu as les fichiers de calibration précis je veux bien recommencer le test ! Personnellement je ne travaille pas pour Brainworx donc je n'y ai pas accès.
Thanks a lot ! There is a website called train my ears I think. But the best way I found is to talk and work with as much engineers/producers as you can. As they all focus on different things sometimes.
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
drop the background music... to have that between the comparisons are pretty disturbing..
Hello ! Will do thanks for your feedback ;).
I would be interested in a comparison with UAD SSL
Good idea ! Unfortunately I do not use UAD plugins.
Uad ssl sounds a little bit more harsh and consume a lot of dsp processors. I prefer the bx console
bx win exactly
great A/B test - would love to see this re-done with the SSL's own Native Channel plug :)
Thanks! Didn't they emulated a 9k desk for this one instead?
@@WheelieMix yes I think so, but it has E style EQ option. But good point on the dynamics, I don't know how they differ between E and 9k... It's a great sounding plugin so I'd be very interested
@@ParlanceOpus Yeah the E/G option is also available on the AWS 900 (Super Analogue SSL sound) so that makes sense. No idea how the dynamics differ actually, good question!
If the reviewer tried to match the exact settings between the two (SSL Vs EMU), then that's the wrong approach. Better to try and match the sound of the SSL console with the plugin...can't do setting for setting...the board could have been modified, recapped..etc. Maybe that one channel of the board sounded really good, but what about the rest of it? I think on a mix of 30+ tracks, having each channel a bit different adds up to the entire analog feel. YES...Analog is still analog and hard to beat for sure, but I think for this example...it's a bit off.
I think I said in the video that I am aware of the calibration difference and that I didn't matched the settings but the sound (in the very first minute of the video and explicitly said that).
I know about recapping and everything so I tried different channels of the desk everytime. To be honest it is a very well serviced desk so the differences were bearly audibles.
So I matched the sound rather than the settings.
Although for the compressor I tried my best to match the sound but it was just off even with totally differents settings or exact similar settings.
Very good point mate ! And I took a very good care of respecting it, as much as I could.
That's also why I don't do a lot of videos.
It takes a lot more times to do videos like this one, in the most honest way possible than trying a plugin on a beat and saying : "yeah this compressor is dope" (not saying this is bad tho, just different).
That's also why I don't have that much videos like this. It's freaking time consuming to do.
Wow, I didn't know that the bx_emulation is not even close - the real SSL sounds so much warmer and the piano feels like it hugs you. The emulation sounds sterile (in comparison) .
The Bx emulation is still very good don't get me wrong. I think they nailed the EQ at 99%. Of course it is really hard to compare as every channels, every SSL desk will be different. But the SSL EQ sound is here and well done.
The only part I am not fond about is the dynamic. The compressor is less exciting for sure.
The worst part being the gate, which sounds nothing like the SSL gate in my opinion. The SSL gate has this transients enhancement/excitement (which is probably not on on purposes) that the Bx don't have in my opinion.
Overall it is a good plugin to have. I personally use. With N channelstrip too. But I tend to use the N more and more as when I use Bx channelstrip I favor the use of the EQ.
@@williamrobertson694 I'm sure it's usable - plug-in standalone sound-footprints vary like a color-palette - but the thing is that the SSL print is warm and fat/wide whereas the emulation sounds cold and very centered/narrow with less punch and that at the same peak level (it looks like)! I'm sure it can be useful but not the same way/case or as a replacement for the real SSL bottom end. You'd have to mix the SSL color/vibe/low mid-saturation and crunch with multiple plugins yourself which to me makes the emulation miss the its point. But if you (speaking in general) recognise/remember the plugin as another color in your palette I'm sure it works well but in a different scenario towards other goals. If you own more SSL-emulation plugins I'd love to hear see/hear more comparisons with other SSL-4000E emulations (especially console1).
[If you don't own a Console1 one, you could send me your original tracks and the SSL prints as well as info about the settings and I'll resend you prints of what console1 sounds like with the same settings as well as prints of the settings matched by ear where I (try to) match their sound and hear if the console1 can create the same charisma with adapted settings. I'm really very interested in that comparison, because I love the console1's workflow but would love to know if Softube's emulation captures the vibe of a real 4000E-channel better/mostly/completely or is overall also rather different sounding and its own thing. This would be especially really interesting because SSL gave them their blessing for using the original name: SSL 4000 E. Not that all of this would be important :) but interesting it is!] - best regards and thanks for your great review!
I absolutely agree. It's usable but don't expect it to be what it's not : a real SSL.
Well now that I think of it I only have the Bx_SSL and the Waves one (the first I had). I don't have the Duende (but it's not emulating a 4000E so it's fine).
I might maybe do another test against them. On very easy and light mixs (like 5 stereo track or so). And see how it goes. If you'd like to participate for Console 1 that'd cool (and enlightening for me too :)).
@@WheelieMix I love to participate for C1! You'd just need to send me the before and after real SSL files with notes to the settings if you use EQ or Compression and I'll match the console1 and send you the edited files back as well as a version of tweaked parameters to match if they don't sound close.
@@synaikido I just AB_LM for mastering purposes or for mixbus when I want to check something. It is also useful for comparison of two different units. For instance when using the hardware insert on Pro Tools. It can bypass it without the usual glitch Pro Tools have when doing so. I very very very rarely use it for mixing (I think I just did 1 time to be honest).
THe problem of both sw compressors is fast attack settings. IN comparison to desk it is much better to turn the fast attack off on plugins
Yes faster attack times (and sometimes faster release) generate more artefacts that software have more difficulties to translate (or somtimes does but with some aliasing applied). That's why I tend to prefer to smash things with hardware and doing slow and "invisible" dynamic control with software.
Hi again. I checked back and I got very good smacky results on a kick/snare loop with the plugins dynamic section with those setting:
Dyn SC on, around 167hz (upper left SC) , Comp set to limit-mode + link, release around 0,10 - threshold around -10db, EQ everything on zero but ON, In-Gain +7,6 db, THD around -35...worked very well.
You get an extra smack out of the kick, if you set the Compressors own SC-screw (little one) on an additional 60hz. The sound gets a bit tighter when "digital" is activated in the TMT/stereo section. Cheers
Yes I guess you can get some good results out of it of course. I often do, although I find that to "respect" the source as much as on the desk, I often have to back off the mix knob, otherwise it sounds too constricted in my humble opinion.
@@WheelieMix I think with every knob there is a source-contextual sweetspot, especially comp-threshold, input gain, THD and SC-options. If you try not to break up the material too heavily, you can go crazy with dynamic procession and get a huge smack out of it, but in the end it is a result made by many factors together. I am so curious to listen to an example from your SSL console again :) Yeah, I can imagine having much fun with a huge console in corona times... sing together: I can´t get no...desinfection, no no nooooo ;)
@@nichttuntun3364 Hahaha that's pretty much the vibe currently ! I am looking forward to mix on the SSL 4000 again (but this time it's gonna be a G tho').
Thanks for the video! After a couple of months using this plugin and bx SSL G, I've found that they need to be drive hard if your want that compressor spank and overall aggressiveness. You need to crank THD all the way up, also you need to activate the EQ, it gives saturation, especially sounds great before the compressor. I think it was somehow calibrated differently than other plugins. First I was kinda afraid to drive it like my other plugins because .. well, it's a plugin) it can alias or distort in an unpleasing way. But no... It behaves like a real desk actually. You just need to crank up the input a bit more
Hey ! My pleasure, thank you for sharing your very interesting experience. I pushed it hard at around 10mins. It was still quite far away from the desk imo. Do you think I should have pushed the THD instead of the input into the same amount of THD ?
I may give it a try in a mix where I use it a lot (will have to dig deeper as I don't use it as much these days). Pushing the "THD ALL" to see what it does !
@@WheelieMix Hey! Well, in my experience, if i want that SSL aggressive push I just crank the THD all the way up, and 9 times of 10 i turn the input knob all the way up too. Also you need more aggressive compressor settings (like higher ratio, lower threshold) than on the real desk or other plugins. Of course you need to compensate the volume in the output section. Then it sounds real SSLish) I had to learn to forget about all the meters and just don't be afraid to push it. That's my experience anyway, I hope it helps 👍🏿
Also forgot to mention that activating the EQ does a real harmonics bump, Especially before the compressor, even if you don't EQ, just turning it on gives a real magic. Cheers!
@@DennisVeeMusic I will give it a try for sure !! I really like to push into the SSL 4000 myself, so let's see if I also like it that much with the plugin :).
@@WheelieMix I was kinda surprised that a plugin can hold that much input gain when I discovered it) Brainworx did a great job on emulating that console drive behaviour. But I learned it after like 6 months of using it)) One day I just tired that compressor sounds like a soft pillow sh*t and decided to slam all the drum tracks into the hell of this bx SSL)) and it worked great😂
Thanks for the review but I have to say it falls into the problem I see with a number of such things here on YT - the raise the volume to hear and understand what the speaker is saying and the music comes out way too loud.
Hello, thanks for the suggestion ! Well I was afraid my voice will be too loud compare to audios. But you're right I will make it a bit louder, it'll help to understand what I'm saying (accent doesn't help). Thanks for the suggestion !!
The accent isn't the problem because once I had the playback level up it's perfectly understandable. I listen to a lot of shortwave radio (I'm in the USA) so most accents aren't an issue. But like I said a number of people that do explanation or review videos having to do with audio work tend to not have their voice levels up compared to the music levels. Then again RUclips isn't the best for audio quality anyway ;)
Good to know my accent isn't an issue haha ^^. Yeah RUclips kind of compress everything down and sometimes screwed the balance a bit (I'm pretty sure other youtube video had been victims of that too). Anyway it's definitely a perfect balance to find and I will give it more attention to it thanks to you know ;).
Thanks for the great video. Because of my background using mixing desks I enjoy using good channel strip plugins when they might help. I have 3 bx channel strips: SSL-E, SSL-G and Console N. An A/B comparison of the E channel is very helpful for me, thank you!
PS - so disappointing about the compression section. The eq is great, but without the quick grab of the original dynamics section, the plugin doesn’t get that lovely, edgy grit. Hitting the input harder does help (I think more so on the G).
I use bx_console N fairly often. I’d love to see a review on it. I’m going to pickup their Focusrite channel. I can A/B that one with my ISA-430!
Thanks again!
Best wishes - Tim
Thanks a lot Tim for your encouragement ! Indeed the dynamic section is a bit disappointing. That's what I prefer on SSL 4k desk haha !
I have Bx_N, although I never used the Neve VXS (only VR and 88R). So I got no point of reference :/.
Same here! The N console has a
pretty big sound to it, but there’s a lot in there to work with. It took me a little while to really learn it. I’ve never even seen the Neve console they modeled!
One thing I look for in a channel strip is that it adds its character to the sound just by plugging into it. After all that’s what great hardware does.
@@timbranniganmusic3458 Very true, although not a big fan of all the Bx console coloration when putting them on all tracks for example. I invite you to try this and properly level-match. Results can be quite surprising.
WheelieMix That’s an excellent point and I know you’re correct. Gain staging reveals the truth. It’s too easy to be fooled by even a decibel or two of level.
@@timbranniganmusic3458 Very true !
I loved your review! I was thinking of trying the same plugin you tried it with towards the end! And yes I agree the waves is closer in comp section but a bit harsher diff.
Thanks man ! Yep Waves has a nice dynamic section but the EQ need a little update it's a definitely trashier (in a good or bad way, it's up to you). But I've heard a new channelstrip is on its way (by Sonimus) and that gives me really high hopes to have finally an SSL channelstrip where the Dynamic section AND the EQ will be both nailed !
WheelieMix yeah! I have lots of Plugin Alliance plugins. Some of them I regret purchasing. I own the old Bx E and G and the new ones. They sound good and could get the job done. But I guess they cant really do a 1 to 1 emulation of the SSL. Anyway I love Sonimus' TuCo! What an amazing compressor, but I always use it with a mix knob. Sometimes the color is too much. I did not try the Stone4k yet. Im not amazed with satson too. Bx TMT is better for me. Sadly, if only Bx could nail the dynamic section, it would be the perfect channelstrip!
1 on 1 emulation is not my goal personaly. But at least getting it to sound as the desk I used. And here on hard compression settings it doesn't. Indeed if they nailed the dynamic it'd be perfect !!!
By the way Sonimus Tuco with an attack time would be my favorite too. Maybe one day ^^.
Great comparison - except you did not use the bx integrated THD !!! Can you make a follow up video and compare that drum section with the SSL desk and the bx WITH the "THD" turned up - please ???
Hey man ! In fact I remember saying in this video that I tried to push the THD but it wasn't helping that much. It's already in here but in its default position.
They nailed the sound of it but the dynamic section is still not quite there (especially the gate). And in that cass THD didn't helped :/.
Anyway we noticed with a friend that the dynamic section is closer to the desk if I don't use the fast attack engaged at all. It sounds way closer to the desk dynamic section that way. Other than that the gate is still not there as I said.
Feel free to ask any questions if you still feel that I didn't gave the answer you were after :) !
Thanks for your kind word of encouragement and your smart criticism !!
Thank you for your feedback ! So it's very interesting what you say - that you got closer to the desk by not engaging "fast" attack and also that THD did not really help. That is dissapointing, I had really hoped they nailed it but your test audio clips Don't lie.
Did you try any of the other Brainworx channel strips , like SSL 4000 G or the N console ?
Then, I also have the Brainworx 4000 E and G BEFORE they released it with the "official" SSL modifications. They changed the dynamics section claiming they worked together with SSL engineers to make it official SSL. So the previous release sounds really good to my ears but I Don't have a SSL desk to compare here.
One more question if you Don't mind… which compressor plugin gives you the most "punchy" and "alive" sound ? what compressor plugin would YOU use if you did not have the SSL desk ?
Oh, and one more thing - Brainworx came out with the "Townhouse" compressor and they claim that it's a good fit to go with the SSL 4000 E... I was just wondering if you had a chance to try out this compressor plugin and what you were thinking if this could be used to give that "punchy" and "alive" sound which you were missing from the console plugin when compared to your SSL 4000 E desk ?
I have the Bx_N. I love the EQ on it and the THD too !
The previous dynamic section of the SSL plugins was further away from the desk if I remember well.
It's especially the gate they misses IMO. It sounds like a normal gate to me almost. Whereas SSL channelstrip gate are way different and can be used as transient shaping tool compare to some normal gate for instance. Waves did nailed that part IMO.
Hmmm really hard to say.
It depends if it's for slamming things or not.
I've found that for slamming stuff the Overloud SSL is surprisingly good. As their 670. But they seem to alias like crazy which is a bit of a shame IMHO.
Fot subtle compression I like Novatron by Kush. Or the Softube TLA100A. I've made a comparison of it vs the Summit hardware and I was blown away how close they were. That made me wants to buy it straight away as the TLA100A is one of my favorite compressor in the studio.
@@prussitotoiprussitotoi4713 By the way, Townhouse won't sound like a SSL Buscompressor from the desk since it's the first iteration of the compressor in a rack format. It is way dirtier and saturated that the one from the desk. So the comparison won't be fair :). I didn't tried it yet as the price is still too high in my opinion right now. But with a little bit of patience, I think that the price will go down during sales more and more as new plugins will get released.
Thanks for doing this.....super interesting to hear.....the upper part of the kick's pitch changes with the real thing? Extra odd harmonics? it sounds like it moves up a major 2nd or so.
Pretty interesting how tough the dynamics sound on the real thing. I have never used a real SSL, but use that BX a good bit and kinda like the compressor, but I have never loved it for room mics. Still prefer the trusty 1176
Hey, I am glad it was useful to you :). Yeah, the harmonics shift, the EQ probably it's hard to really know PRECISELY why it happens imho. But yeah the original SSL dynamic is super fast and punchy as hell. So great for snares and kick. And if you combine this with clipping the desk a little bit, it sounds even better imho.
@@WheelieMix Definitely would love to have an SSL handy. Have you ever had the chance to work on a 9000j console by any chance?
@@davewestner Unfortunately no I only worked on AWS 900, Nucleus, 4048, 4000G+ and E series when it comes to SSL.
@@WheelieMix ok, thanks! Appreciate you getting back to me!
By the way, OvertoneDSP had a version of the SSL that sounds closer then all of them as they were the engineers from SSL. SSL stopped them from selling it.
I've heard that indeed, but since it is not on sale I have no way to have access to it. I would be curious to see if it holds up against the desk. Thx for commenting =).
@@WheelieMix You can still find it on some torrent sites, if you dare to go that route.
The hardware sounds so alive... After finding this and other videos around youtube about the (not so coveted) ssl channel compressor, I decided to throw a shootout video comparing the dynamics of the bx_SSL 4000 E, the Waves CLA MixHub and the OverTone DYN4000. @WpNs
Interestingly, the DYN4000 seems to have a very nice grab. Thanks for the useful video!
My pleasure dude thanks for the kind words ! Yes software have still some improvements to make regarding compression IMO. I'll def check your video right now !
I get that the dynamics aren't quite right, but plugins tend to do better at more average settings. By using the fastest times you exposed a weakness......You may have had much better and somewhat more comparable results, had you just dialed then in at moderate real world settings.....similar-ish settings, but dialed in for taste on each one....and avoid the fastest settings....especially attack.......dial in to taste. I love True Iron.....awesome plug
Hey thanks for your comment ?
But isn’t it what I already did through the whole video except the fast attack moment ? :)
Cheeeers
@@WheelieMix You are probably right....that moment stuck out and I was multitasking....my bad, in that case...... Analog mojo compression in general, is the trickiest part to get close n the box....
Of course the hardware will be better! It has a lot more processes going on under the hood which is impossible to encapsulate with mathematical functions. But try to compare hardware with Acustica Sand plugin which is based on IR technology. Its a lot closer to hardware in terms of space, depth and color.
Thanks for your comment ! Yes but there is also a lot of things happening under the hood of a plugin (maybe a lot of more because of the issues it can generates). But yeah it's super hard to model the non-linearities of material stuff haha.
I won't compare it to Acustica SAND for few reasons :
- Acustica SAND don't have the channel dynamic section, so the comparison won't work.
- Acustica is too much of a CPU Hog for me (a channelstrip need to be used as much as you want, it won't be the case of SAND).
Yes Acustica sounds great but they still creates artefacts related to plugins sometimes (quantization errors, aliasing etc...). But they did a great job. I just wish I could just buy one compressor instead of a whole bundle ^^.
That’s such a fallacy that digital math can’t emulate hardware. It all about nonlinearities and computational power. Sacrifices are made and nonlinear systems are modeled with linearity to not be cpu intensive. As processing power has grown over the last two decades plugins have gotten better and better. Guitar amp modeling is a good example. As processing gets faster over the next two decades and modeling takes advantage of it, they will continue to improve. If plug-in makers start faithfully modeling the input impedance and reactance of hardware and coloration of old A/D converters, the differences will eventually fade. However, since many fantastic albums were made on analog gear and many fantastic albums have been made completely ITB, I’m not sure it isn’t a moot point. It’s the pianist the matters more than the piano.
I agree. The compressor is not even close. You have to drive the THD to get the compressor to sound like the ssl.
Well, pushing the THD will add saturation, harmonics and transients taming. It will not, unfortunately, transform the compressor in a way that it could match the desk at least a little bit. Also it saturates all the sound (THD doesn't impact only the compressor as you already know) so it put it even further from the desk from what I tried =).
@@WheelieMix Yes, I agree. They did NOT get the compressor down unfortunately. It's like having a more smoother SSL if that makes any sense. LOL
Yep like having an approximation of it ;).
Thanks for this excellent video :) Great to hear this compared against the real hardware. I have the BX and Waves so will use BX for EQ and TMT and Waves for dynamics. Not ideal but since I don't have a real SSL 4000 desk this will have to do. Did you ever compare the hardware against Acustica SAND?
Hi ! Thanks for the kind word mate that's nice ! I am glad my comparison was useful.
Yeah using the Bx and Waves dynamic could work, I did that too, but it's a bit annoying to do still. Otherwise I use the desk when I can :).
I didn't compare to Acustica Sand for multiple reason because :
- Acustica are a pain to download for trial.
- Acustica are not stable yet. Can make a session crash or harder to recall (happened to me with Acustica Crimson).
- Acustica are CPU Hog, no point having an SSL channelstrip to only using once or twice.
- Acustica Sand don't emulate the channelstrip comp. In fact their SSL channelstrip is kind of a frankenstein one with the Gbus Comp into it. Or what I like about SSL Channelstrip it's the dynamic section of it. The EQ is nice and convenient but to me what makes a SSL Channelstrip special is really the dynamic section. Which Acustica haven't (if I'm not mistaken), so the comparison will be wrong.
- Acustica have a strong marketing on how they plugins are supposedly superior to algo plugins. Marketing maintained by a strong fan-base stating that Acustica are unique, fantastic and THE ONLY ONE capable of recreating hardware sound (and that algo plugins are for boys). But what's happening under the hood is still some weird plugins shit sometimes so I'm not that much interested in a brand proposing items that are workflow killers and still have plugins artifacts. That being said, Pink2 and Magenta are ticking me, but since downloading the demo will require me to download 1 Go of stuff, I'm not sure I'll have the time to try them.
The reason I asked was because I also agree with Marek that the hardware sounded more open and wondered how it would stack up against SAND. I have SAND and agree there are some trade offs for their magic hardware sound and it doesn't have a channel compressor only on the buss. Unfortunately I don't have a real SSL 4000 desk to compare it against SAND and if I did I probably wouldn't need the plugin then unless I wanted to save on my electricity bill ;)
Yeah maybe SAND is better, but I don't think that much because BX is really close (except for the dynamic section). But again, if I can only use a few SAND in a sessions, it doesn't worth it to me :/.
Also believe me, Acustica sound great, but they still sounds and react like plugins, there is no magic behind it (still some weird stuff happening under the hood sometimes and those things adds up with a multiple tracks session).
If downloading a trial of Sand was quicker (and also if using it was quicker) I'd maybe be give it a go, but unfortunately I barely have the time for that, sorry :/. I can still send you the SSL processed track and the raw tracks if you wanna play with them ? I will be happy hearing the results.
Also having a desk is primarily to RECORD audio. Which Acustica can't do haha. So yeah having the desk ONLY for mixing is a bit of a luxury (you really need to being able to afford that). But for recording, a desk is super convenient (also for mixing is way more fun, but again need to afford that fun haha ^^).
Thanks for the kind offer but in hindsight I realise my earlier question is not so relevant now as SAND doesn't have a channel compressor :)
Excellent video! I wish I would have seen this before I bought BX-4000E I wonder what life would be like using the dynamics from Waves and the EQ/THD from BX? Have you come across any other SSl E style compression that is closer than both waves and BX? Slate FG-401 is supposed to provide some SSL dynamics flavour, it would be interesting to try it out against Waves & BX. I would also agree that the background music while you are talking pulls attention from my ears, and my muscle memory is compromised because of it; I am really enjoying your videos, nonetheless, brother!
Hey thanks a lot, that means a lot to me ! Yes I have reduced/deleted background music from now, lesson learner ;).
Well, I haven't found an SSL dynamic emulation I like for now. The compressor from the desk is very unique IMO. Apparently the new PA J is closer but I am highly doubtful.
The FG-401 I never felt it sounded like the SSL compressor and never really understood the statement behind this. FG-401 mode 1 sounds just like a passage VCA compressor to me.
@@WheelieMix You never really understood the statement? Well, Steven Slate is a beast of an advertiser. That's why they push out such claims.
@@Mansardian Haha indeed that's what I think too. I do like the guy, he is a amazing. Marketing and advertiser gurus but amazing. He also seems very respectful to anyone online (which is not the case of some other CEOs in the audio plugins world...).
nice review, wish vmr could be a universal standard and all other devs could make 500s for it...pretty much like the api thing with the real hardware...workflow would be much easier...you could take the eq from bx's ssl the comp from waves and so on...the bx4000 could be easily broken down to 4 individual plugins so you could pick your insert points with a other plugins....the saturation on cla mixhub is epic by the way
Haha I think it won't happen tho.
But I would love, for instance, PA to makes a channelstrip where you can combine EQs from one and compressor for another. For instance, I much prefer the Bx_N EQ but prefer the Bx_E dynamic section. I also prefer the Bx_N THD.
I have a gave a look the CLA Mixhub, to me workflow wise it is similar or a bit different. It sounds to me like a product to sell dreams to home-studioists. As mixing on a desk, to me, doesn't feel like this at all. You still have only one mouse doing other thing at a time haha.
But yeah I think it is the beginning of something that can be great.
Hi Wheelie! You've done some cool videos, but I was curious what sample rate you're using. When I've converted 88 or 96 sessions to 44/48, I notice big changes. I've heard that most plugins need to run at 88/96 just to get in the ballpark of the hardware. If you're using 44/48 like most people, I'd be curious to see what you think when running the plugin at 96. Thanks for the great work
I don't mix at 96khz most of the time except when the artists request it (which already happened). But when it happened I don't remember thinking : "Wow this is different, this is a lot better". It is maybe a bit better indeed. But sample rate has to considered to me, in a more practical way : Why choosing this sample rate ? (I chose 48khz because it is broadcast standard). Why not choosing the other sample rates ? (44.1khz is not broadcast standard and forces me to re-encode for some publishers, 96khz is too CPU intensive and takes too much space in my drives). Of course if I mix for a CD 44.1khz will be required. It all depends on the project. But I think it is the job of the plugins dev to make their plugins sound great in any sample rate rather than the job of the engineer thinking "ho maybe I should open this project a 192khz, because my plugins will react better.". I even mixed stuff at 88.2khz recently haha. It all depends on the artists.
Ah, I just mean for comparison purposes, I'd be curious how things would turn out. I notice a real loss of depth, headroom, and high freq detail whenever I convert an 88/96 project to 44 or 48 and I use the BX SSL E on just about every track. I'm pretty sure it was in the Gearslutz plugin analysis thread where everyone was just talking about how upsampling really isn't the same thing as running the plugins at a higher rate naturally. So, it may not be possible to get a plugin to its full potential at 44/48 or even at 88/96 since most UAD runs at 192(it may have been Andy from Cytomic that said 96k should be sufficient for most things though). Satin I think converts itself to 384k. Today's budget cpus can handle 96k if you get a Ryzen 1600 or something else that has around 100 single core and 1000 multicore points on cpu.userbenchmark. Hardware I think runs at the equivalent of an unlimited sample rate unless it's digital. Two of the best plugins ever are pure digital ports of the code; The Softube Weiss and the UAD Neve DFC. Some of UAD's analog modeling might be the best out there. Their Distressor sounded almost exact in a comparison video and others have said the SSL Bus Comp from UAD is pretty exact too. I think the BX SSL E is a lot better than UAD's new SSL though.
My idea is to try to get to some kind of objective truth as to what plugins are really capable of and if current computers can really push the limits of what's possible. It may end up being true that plugins will only be able to pull off miracles in 10 years when AI makes Gulfoss and Smart EQ2 look like primitive toys lol
I found your channel doing research on the VSE-2. To me, it sounds really clean if you set it that way, but you were saying it's redundant compared to other eqs and it feels a bit limited for the price they want. My main channel eq is the one on this BX SSL E. Then maybe I'll use Museq, Dangerous Bax, Stoneq4k, or Pro Q2. On the master I can get a bit more diverse but usually try to do most of the heavy lifting with the Neve DFC. What other eq would you recommend I try out if I like the VSE-2 but want a bit more options? Thanks again.
@@viciousblissvideos It makes sense because oversampling is different algorithm possible where just using a project at 96khz is well... 96khz. But just because you tickled my curiosity I'll make a song at 96khz, and maybe use to demo a plugin. Although I'll need to be careful not having a 150 tracks session or my computer won't be able to make it and record the video at the same time haha.
If Satin is doing what you said, then it's a very clever plugin and others should get inspired from it.
Funny you told UAD as I don't plan to buy any of their plugins at all. Because they destroyed the interest of a plugins : Portability. You always need to have hardware with you (Satellite or Apollo Twin). It's ridiculous, especially in 2019. Whereas they did released a UAD Solo Laptop which looked like a USB dongle but it is discontinued. If one day, UAD will make their DSP chip portable as a USB dongle I'll consider them.
Also their DSP is a joke, their new SSL plugins take a lot of processing power it is plain impossible to use it on more than 12 tracks. Their DSP chip is stuck in 2008... When you look at the price of the plugins and their hardware (which are as overpriced as a Macbook Pro can be) and the strong customer basis they got, I think they could make some efforts. But they won't, precisely because despite all those flaws they still got a huge customer basis, a lot of fans and they have a very very very strong branding and marketing team which knows how to make humor and gearporn singing together. All of this endorsed by mixing engineer/producers that basically act like salesman and at the same time give audio courses where they used... guess what... UAD plugins. And they do that very smartly exposing sometimes how this UAD plugins is amazing. And I don't even talk about some RUclips channels that have huge base of followers and that when they demo a UAD plugins, are going way overboard in compliment... Well as you see UAD is a big subject for me haha ^^.
Anyway, the VSE plugin is darn unique. It would have been less expensive, I'd have buy it right away. Because it's not sexy or impressive and can be quite limited. But it sounds very very good. One very important aspect for me about EQ, and which sometimes we forget, it's how they RESPECT or handles transients. This, makes the difference between any copy of a Pultec and an original Pultec for instance. Or like in my FG-A vs API 550A (from the 70s) video where you can hear how the hardware preserves a lot more and almost enhance a little bit the transients in comparisons with the plugin. And regarding this the VSE plugin left me a very good impression.
You already have an amazing collection of EQ. Some that I share with you (Museq, StonEQ, Pro Q2, never been with the BAX, it's just a baxandall EQ ^^...). So Museq is definitely a good option. I use it a lot for specific tasks (mixbus, brightening a sound without makes it horribly harsh, drum buss for whatever reasons I like it here). Pro Q2 is an amazing EQ for workflow. And I'll finish this super long message by mentioning a plugin I discovered yesterday called LVC Audio TonedMax. Which is basically a Pro Q2 workflow (kinda) packed with analog emulation, transformers etc... For it looks darn cool as I always wanted an EQ like this (Waves H-EQ was a good beginning). I tried it and loved it but I need a bit of time to see if I still like it after few days (you know the honeymoon period haha).
@@WheelieMix I got the UAD because time is running out on this profession. Tech is something I've tried to follow due to how everyone was caught offguard by Napster and things like that. If you've never heard of Ray Kurzweil or a site like Fanatical Futurist, there's tech coming in the next decade with insane capabilities. If AI passes the Turing Test by 2029, things will be mixing themselves before then. There's a lot on UAD that's the best out there. Ocean Way, Distressor, DFC, 1176, Helios, 224, 480, and the AMS RMX. But the platform itself is kinda ridiculous because of the dsp limitations. The only things you can run a ton of are the Precisions, Cambridge, and Harrison basically. And they told me my Octo using 10% of cpu across all cores on its own is normal, so it actually degrades cpu instead of boosting its capabilities. For me, those UAD plugins I listed are the best they have and I wouldn't replace them with other things they offer. My hope was that the UAD would boost my system's single core capabilities by freeing up the resources I would've normally used on cpu intense plugins. The good part is that the UAD enabled me to deactivate combos of plugins I needed to use to get anywhere near what the UAD stuff achieves.
I'm finding I like the VSE-2 better on busses than on the master or pre-master. I'll need to do more comparisons to see if I prefer other eqs. For sessions, I try to keep the track range around 45 max and have a few auxes. That pushes the limits of what my overclocked Ryzen 1700 can do with a UAD octo satellite.
Hii there, how do i train my ears & that was an amazing review ❤️❤️
TrainYourEars website can be a good starting point. Otherwise it is practice and collaboration which is the best way IMHO.
Good Job Willie! very Useful comparison!
Thanks mate :D !
Bx console compressor sounds terrible. But how about disabling the comp and using townhouse after it? Edit: I just did the test myself, too different… what I found is… 1. They may have recently improved the algo in the Bx as it’s not currently that bad( testing with slow attack tho). However combing a waves ssl dynamic section with the bx EQ is magic. If you then add a townhouse after that combo it’s just killer.
It's not that bad indeed, it's just not what I expected (especially in comparison to the desk).
@@WheelieMix yea definitely… the waves is much better in that department but waves EQ is super harsh IMO. Both combined sound great.
@@gonebymidnight2881 Agree !!
I have the bx version but I’m thinking about the new ssl six. I’m not sure if it would be as good as the desk. It’s hard to know..
Hey Robert !
To be 100% honest. From what I saw. I find the SSL Six to be very gimmicky and overpriced.
It seems to include stuff in it to attract home studiost : SSL Gbus Comp (but with very minimum settings which, to me, makes it less useful), "summing possibilities" (SSL are amazing desks, but never really had the reputation to be amazing summing devices), SSL EQ (which is certainly from new digital SMD desk and not a "old" 4k era EQs) etc...
Again most of this is assumptions. But I have the feeling that it is a more way to conquer new markets with homestudiost which are highly sensible to marketing magic fairdy dust and "iconic names" (due to a lack of financial means, experiences, knowledges or all of the 3 at the same time).
Don't get me wrong. I love SSL stuff a lot ! But yeah... haha.
WheelieMix thanks so much! You are very good to give such a detailed explanation. Have a great day.
@@RobertNaik My pleasure :).
what about the bx 9000j can it get closer to the compression sound?
Good question, I haven't tried it (and I am not THAT interested in it tbh ^^).
The EQ is ok, basically this is only a frequency curve editors so no magic here as they emulated the curves well. But the compressor needs more input to work well, 6db or even 10db and then it gives similar results, as you proved it later with the kick it needs more than 10db all together. Even then it has different knee curves and treshold point but the difference is small.
It seems that Waves did the compressor well in MixHub and EV2, but they do not plan to oversample their plugins so this is a bummer. Not that bx oversample much, it moves from 2x to 4x, but even that is better than nothing.
Hey, thanks for chiming in ! Actually there are much more things into play in the EQ than just "frequency curve editors". As an EQ can add saturation, have non-linearity, but even more importantly the phase response and magnitude is what makes or break an EQ (or what makes it special sometimes, like the messy phase of an EQP1A).
I agree the dynamic wasn't there. I wasn't able to use the new EV2, as it is not supported by my OS. But, to be 100% honest, I don't think oversampling is the solution. Actually, sometimes oversampling can be detrimental (because it's badly coded, uses weird filters or dithering). But it's good to have the option indeed!
@@WheelieMix Ah, oversampling is just to tame down our OCD, most of the time we do not hear it, but when thinking about the oversampling I have FabFilter in mind, they simply do everything well. 👍
I always called those emulations a preset plugins as you are limited to what the design allows and I always argued how FabFilter Pro Q3 is much more capable. While this being true from a technical perspective there is something powerful in limiting yourself so I now understand better those "crippled" emulations as they often prevent you from doing some weird stuff that Pro Q3 allows. The lack of experience and knowledge I guess.
As for the EV2, basically it sounds the same as MixHub, or very similar. They have the same preamp saturation and the same dynamics, or very similar.
Somehow I like the old Waves SSL E channel with the Saturn 2 before it and Warm Transformer algorithm. 👍
🖖
@@BojanBojovic Hahaha yeah, OS matters if it's done well and used on plugins that saturate/distort a lot. UAD upsample like crazy their plugins, and it works very well.
Yes I agree, that's maybe why I am quicker when I mix on the SSL. No 20 bands to mess around, just get it right and move on. And most of the time I much prefer the result haha ^^.
The original Waves SSL has a great snap in the dynamic section, especially the gate !!
@@BojanBojovic Brainworx doesn't oversample they're channel strip.
The desk definitely sounds a bit more open in the top end and a bit thicker. Width feels roughly comparable. All in all though, I would argue that the bx console is one half of the same coin really
Hey ! Thanks for chiming in ! I agree indeed. Only the dynamics section "disappointed me".
@@WheelieMix Thank you! I do agree with you there. I've learned to work around it, but It would be nice to get a bit more oomf out of the plugin like the desk does. I feel like their new J series captured that a bit better.
I haven't used Waves in forever, from what I remember they captured the dynamics a bit better. Everything else about the Waves strip doesn't compare even half as well as the bx though, which is why I switched.
Hmm, I wonder how Audio Acustica's stuff compares o hardware?
Good question. I got a few stuff that Acustica Emulated. Heard that it's not their best product (GML 8200, Culture Vulture Phoenix). For SSL I can give it a ttry but I have to confess that Acustica stuff is sometimes a bit weird with all ttheir options (Sand for instance) and damn the demo is heavy for the hard drive.
Although Acustica have strong limitations (Aliasing, Impossible to push them to the red etc...). Few of them I pointed out in my El Rey. + the CPU hits that makes me wonder if they worth it for me.
That without mentionning they realeased and are currently selling plugins with few flaws (echo bug for instance). So I am not fully into it.
Core 13 is better but I am waiting for them to develop more stuff with Core 13 I could compare to my pieces of hardware.
Hii there, how do i train my ears , that was one amazing review ❤️❤️
The bx_SSL's meter is completely off, isn't it. Compared to the VU Meter
Yeah it's a bit weird indeed !
In my opinion you have to try a comparison with pro tools DSP mode..!
Ha really ? Why so ? :)
WheelieMix because your SSL channel work only on one audio signal per channel. Your mac cpu work on many other things like daw....latency....mouse...monitor...maybe wifi..and other. The pro tools DSP work only on plug in informations. Surely the SSL is better, but the comparison it will be more correct. This is not the truth...only my opinion. What do you think?
@@robe972 If you process a track through 1 plugin and process the same track through the same plugin but with 10 app running in the background, the results would null. Which is to be expected, so hopefully ti does not impact the sound quality.
What’s your thoughts on SSL Channelstrip 2? Is it closer to that SSL Sound?
Hey. Tbh the video was released before SSL Ch2. So I cannot say. But having access to an SSL 4000G atm, I don't really care about plugins. Although the UAD one felt very very close. So I might be curious to try the SSL Ch2.
BUT! The SSL Ch2 is emulating a 9k, not a 4k, so not really comparable so to speak. And one of my favorite thing about SSL desk is to overload them. Which I don't think the SSL Ch2 is focused on. As they emulated a much cleaner desk.
@@WheelieMix There’s the E button that supposedly models the 4000E desk. Saturation was supposed to be included but in the newest model.ñ plugin, the 4KB. It’d be awesome for those of us who haven’t experienced the desk itself to get your opinion on it 🤗🙏🏽
How do you think the new CLA Mixhub dynamics section compares?
Hey !
Sorry I have no idea yet as I am not really interested into this plugin.
I don't like the workflow of it.
But I hope they kept their findings of the SSL Channelstrip and putted it in the CLA plugin with some improvements. Because they nailed the gate very well and the compressor is also one of their best. I sometimes only use the Waves plugin for its gate/comp and Bx for EQ (I know it's a bit silly).
@@WheelieMix HI there. Are you aware that you can use the CLA Mix Hub as a single (normal) plug in? It is considered to be a updated version of the original Waves SSL. People are not aware of this and it is really a shame. To me, the CLA Mix single plugin is the closest thing. You should give it a chance. :) all the best. Thank you.
@@lydfar2392 Hey ! Indeed it is possible (with the bucket mix window thingy). I'll try it if I find the time for sure ! For now I got too much work to do on the big mother ^^.
@@WheelieMix 👍good to hear...
amazing all the crap you take for uploading this wonderful, useful video, wheelie :) think you could get any closer to that drum crush by using a slower release time on the plugin? release sounds faster to me. you must have tried it. how did it sound?
Hey ! Thanks for the kind words man, I am happy it is useful to you :). I tried but it wasn't that close, it sounded more "choked". Which is, well logical so nothing wrong with that.
@@WheelieMix I was able to get a lot closer with 10 plugins, the compressors being Waves E Channel (400ms release), Korneff Talkback Limiter and TDR Kotelnikov. A few EQs and a few transient designers plus a limiter doing 5 dB of GR at the end to match the peaks. The real SSL still had more focus in the mids, the plugins were less muscular/defined through the middle and a bit brighter. The brainworx sounded like super fast release distortion, which is cool but obviously a totally different sound. Gotta love hardware compressors!
@@dirkchurlish4074 Hehe that reminds me when I tried to imitate the Thermionik Phoenix. I used 3-5 plugins but it wasn't that great in the end ^^. Yep hardware have good points too :).
Did you really match the volume? I think it sounds as the ssl hardware is louder on almost all the samples which cause bias for me
Hello, I did my best for that, but you can check the VU meter to see.
Cool, but turn off background music.
Will do thx dude for your feedback =).
Please, make same for Satson Channel Strip by Sonimus
It'll be interesting as it is brand new but unfortunately I will just be able to compare the EQ and saturation.
As the Sonimus ChannelStrip compressor is not the SSL Channelstrip compressor but the "Bus" compressor in the summing section of the desk. So it'll make the comparison inadequate :/.
@@WheelieMix So, do it just for compressor and saturation please :) I do not use compressors in channel strips plugins :)
@@15bleach51 And even think the EQ from Sonimus is an hybrid design between Brown and Black EQ from what I've read from the manual. So apart from the saturation nothing could be compared to the real desk I am afraid :/.
The real one sounds more open. The bx sounds dull and a little bit lifeless. To me it seems like plugins can’t emulate real hardware today. The result for me, take a good parametric eq, like Tb eq4 and you’re done with digital EQs. For colouring the sound take one of the millions saturator plugins afterwards. Thanks for that.
I think the EQ here is really nice. It's more the dynamic section that left me disappointed.
For coloring I like True Iron (if I agree with the little phase rotation it imparts). I was surprised by it.
WheelieMix But do I really need an 350€ eq for that or does the Sonimus stoneq 4K something similar or better for the low price?
Haha I got StonEQ, and to be honest if you have it, you barely don't need anything if it satisfy you.
WheelieMix A Sonimus Strip is on it’s way, really excited to hear and try that in the near future.
Noooo way really ??? That'll be so damn killer if they nailed it !!!
Console 1 SSL 4000 ?
Hello ! Sorry I don't have it unfortunately.
did you turn thd all the way up?
I tried with THD turned all the way up indeed. It makes it more nervous, but eats also transients for breakfast that way haha.
After years of ignoring it I downloaded NI's Solid-Series. Have to say: the dynamics section might be closer to the real one than brainworx's plugin. It sometimes is the hidden gem that is going to surprise you.
Damn it's been a while I haven't tried these, I'll sure give them another ear thanks !!
You're hearing it right. The NI Solid Series were coded by Cool Stuff Labs, the talented group behind Kush's UBK-1 plugin and EI Arousor among many others. I agree with you, they sound killer and as good as anything BX has done in the SSL department. The Solid Series compressor comes uncannily close to my hardware Smart C2.
drums comp smash test is a greatest way to show diff between hardware and software ...like this test ruclips.net/video/vEy-DQALy3I/видео.html :))) but like your video before, you can fix this huge diff by diff settings , by saturator or adding compressor that will be smash , that why i use a lot of softube plugins..they all have insane saturation and "smash" against most of plugins in market!
p.s. brainworx eqs is most "clean" in market (that why uad buy and resell brainworx plugins + softube plugins)
i seen alot of really great guys using brainworx for postmix only (even mastering) and never for pre
Yeah I think Brainworx have mastered the art of digital EQ. Plugin Alliance have some amazing EQ collection.
Compression wise I'm less convinced but I didn't try them all of course.
Anyway here, the dynamics sounds good but nothing as punchy as the SSL is. IMHO.
@@WheelieMix you should try the townhouse comp and the class A shadow hills. I love them
@@XxdillffxX Oh got them and use them quite a bit. Especially SHMC Class A !
@@XxdillffxX Oh got them and use them quite a bit. Especially SHMC Class A !
@@WheelieMix I think the best ssl emulation is the native ssl but these two I mentioned are great emulations too in terms of dynamics
When u level matched the difference was very subtle, in conclusion stop reviewing if u wont do justice and fairness in comparison. so disappointing,louder is not better only if u matched the levels.like on instant within this clip, the kick from bx and console did match up and only a slight difference.
So you said I level matched (which I did) but didn't do it justice ? I can't see your point here my dude =).
When comparing and level matching as close as I can I think it is fair.
Louder is not better indeed, that is why I level matched...
For the kick I found the difference too big so I pushed with a trim BEFORE the plugin to see if it could makes it sound closer to the desk. But I first started without it to show you the difference.
Ce test est complètement inutile sans les fichiers de calibrations qui servent à calibrer le plugin par rapport aux mesures effectuées durant les mesures...
Comme explicité dans la première minute de la vidéo : Les résultats seront différents car ils n'ont pas émulé la même console avec les mêmes convertisseurs que ce que j'utilise. L'idée étant de voir si la vibe générale et le comportement global est bien respecté ou non.
De plus chaque SSL sonnera légèrement différentes par rapport à une autre.
C'est pour ça que je le précise dés le début.
Maintenant si tu as les fichiers de calibration précis je veux bien recommencer le test ! Personnellement je ne travaille pas pour Brainworx donc je n'y ai pas accès.
Hii there, how do i train my ears , that was one amazing review ❤️❤️
Thanks a lot !
There is a website called train my ears I think. But the best way I found is to talk and work with as much engineers/producers as you can. As they all focus on different things sometimes.
@@WheelieMix true that, mate . . Thanks a ton