UPDATE: Found a few more things that I missed in this video. Here are the things I found: 1. 9000-J adds harmonics when you engage the dynamics chain, but the EQ doesn't add anything, 2. 4000-E and 4000-G add harmonics in the EQ AND add some harmonics when engaging the dynamics chain but only if the SC is disengaged. 3. Amek does add a single harmonic in the comp. Subscriber shoutout to @Hugelongjohns for inspiring me to look deeper My channel is still very small but I have amazing subscribers already lol.
The compressor on the Amek not having harmonics is expected because the desk they are modeling has DSP plugins. Meaning each channel has a A/D converter and the dynamics processing is all digital. Thus no harmonics. actually I was disappointed in their compressor, not because of harmonics, but because the original desk gave you multiple compressors and gates! Something that was pretty neat on an analog board. Missed opportunity by BX, but I can see that maybe it was a legality thing but who knows.
Personally, I wouldn't fault Brainworx on whether the SSL channels strip "isn't 3 dB exactly," or not. I nwas told many years ago by Bob Ludwig, no less, that "the SSL eq isn't really x value of dB..." His point was that his mastering eq was far more accurate than ANY console's channel eq. After I heard that I never really looked back. In my practice, I don't look at the numbers too, too much; I judge th amounts by ear. Trust your ears, not your yes, people.
You just crank the boost... Find the frequency... Then scale down the boost to the sweet spot... You're never looking at the dB Same goes for the cut... With some tweaks at the Q
I think you might be missing the point as far as the EQ discrepancies go.. as far as I am aware, these plugins are modelled on actual physical desks so I would imagine they matched the EQ curves - worts and all. They encourage you to mix with your ears.. try not to focus too much of numeric values. I do however agree that the fact they appear to be using the exact same modelling for the THD is a bit shady. Thanks for the video. It was interesting.
Test the HP filter on the SSL9000, it's the worst of them all if you're comparing numbers for numbers in plugin doctor! But again, it's emulating the imperfections of the console. So, we have to trust our ears at the end.
Yup, the HP filter is the one where it's really obvious, you have to really dig into it! The 4KE has a great HP filter, imho, very nice resonance bump when you sweep anywhere between 100 and 250 : )
My considerations: A=neutral, B=louder and more higher transients, C= low and high end are tamed, D=nice low end. E and F would not be my choice. Waiting for the blind test results.
Very clever changing to EQ values so they sound more smooth, but really they're just not boosting as much. Still, I really like the Brainworx channel strip that I have, which is the Focusrite, though it might be best to use as little saturation as possible, then run a separate saturation plugin with oversampling. I like the Analog Obsession plugins, which offer lots of saturation options.
BrainWorx has some decent artist endorsements, but I never use the few freebies that I acquired from them last year. I find there’s a certain murkiness to them similar to many Waves plug-ins. And as mentioned here, they aren’t exactly cheap. My main work horse plugins are Soundtoys, Sonnox and Pulsar. And don’t forget your DAW’s plug-ins. Good video ✌️
bro i thought i was the only one, i found the focusrite channel strip murky as well, i find my self wanting to use it but i dont get the results I'm looking, i just ended going for the waves Rchannel, much simpler to use
@@joakimjocka8022 Dude, if you want crispy and airy, you can't beat Sonnox Inflator or the Limiter/Compressor. They've been a secret weapon on countless recordings. Both on sale now. Only thing I don't like is that you have to be online to use it. But it's worth the sale price. I'll also swear by Pulsar's 1178. It's incredibly versatile whether on a channel, Bus mix or Master bus. Pair that with Pulsar Massive EQ? And it's clean and creamy. The 1178 is a rare bird that was basically an 1176 but two channels. The Massive is probably the best replica of a Manley. Another staple in major studios. Both on sale now too. You can demo if you want as well. Good luck! ✌
@@lordberly I was aware of the conversation about Decapitator and its "aliasing." The official consensus is that independent tests have found its aliasing to be at inaudible levels. (Unlike some other plugins). In this context, for me it's like worrying about an LFO that only elephants can hear. So, not only do I love my LFO's for modulating those furry saw tooth waves... I LOVE my Decapitator. Try it on a brass section for film score? You've entered the Matrix 😉 It's still a big go-to for many top engineers today. Glad you like it too. ✌
@@gt4032 Yep, always buy when on sale. They have sales frequently so i I find a plugin interesting, I'll just wait...All the popular ones basically rotate on sale.
Important to note that what kind of sounds like a'' mistake'' when you talk about it in the video, is fully intentional. This is not a straight digital EQ, but rather...*modelling*. Which means when you boost say 4k on the channel strip, you're not boosting 4k, but simply 'roughly around that area' - just like on the actual SSL console does. The consoles are like that, and that's one of the things they modelled, the curves. The Bx N console has tighter correspondences with the knob values, which they also modelled. That one, independent of that fact, is also my favorite.
What you say is true about the console, but in the software world, from my observations this also walks a thin line towards being misleading. Humor me for a moment: The analog world was about ears not eyes because these were physical pieces of equipment that degraded, voltage inconsistencies, old internal hardware parts like tubes transformers, basically chaos theory. Then the digital world came and brought us tools that required our eyes, highly specific programming and binary code, algorithms that create the exact same result over and over and the like, and now we are in an in-between. I'm ok with modeling a console that has inaccuracies, but its the inaccurate readings that indicate corner cutting. If I'm going to mix using an SSL channel strip for example, and it has the inconsistencies of the actual console which I am totally OK with, don't give me inaccurate readings. I know its not a mistake to model the equipment, but it is a mistake to then have visual aid that is intentionally misleading, even if its in the name of authenticity. See what I mean.
@@moksoundstudios I'm not sure I follow you entirely, although I get some of what you mean. It's not anymore 'inaccurate' than the consoles, nor is it more misleading than the consoles even with the digital vs analog thing taken into account. When people think they are boosting 8k on the console, they are boosting the same freqs as this model. Many engineers thought they boosted 8 k for decades, when they weren't. They thought they were cutting lows under 150 when they weren't. And that's fine, because it's the ears that count, and the result. You boost and cut what sounds good. That is the same in the digital domain. I don't see any difference when it comes to the overall truth of that statement. That's not cutting any corners from the developers; it's making sure that those used to working on the original consoles get a sound and feel as close to the original as possible, as well as making sure they can claim that the emulation is as true as possible. Now. that said...I will give you this: The VERY best solution would have been to include a switch on all these channelstrip emulation called "True freq mode", that turned on the digital accuracy we're used to from standard digital EQs. They wouldn't have to do that, as that does MORE than the modelling promises, but that would have given the user a choice. Also, I think it's a mistake not to include the oversampling, as the BX consoles benefit greatly from OSx2. The OSx2 is the final piece of the puzzle that makes the BX consoles among the very best options available, period . (I personally have them loading directly into Reaper with OSx2 already engaged using Reapers brilliant OS feature in combination with its fX chain option, which allows me to always recall the BX plugins WITH the OSx2 already engaged....but this should be an option to everyone, non Reaper users included.)
@@blackswanstudios6632 You did sort of miss where I was going with it. You are not wrong about what you are saying, but I do think my position is misunderstood. I'll be making a video about this because I get a lot of comments pertaining to this, and it will be easier for me to clarify with a video. That's why I say I'm in the minority on the whole emulating analog thing when it comes to EQ's.
@@moksoundstudios I'd be curious to see where you think I missed it, because there really is no "logical space" for me to overlook, unless you're talking about a different aspect that you didn't fully adress yet, in the case I look foward to the video.
Some plugins do have a resale value. I've purchased used plugins before and had to pay $20 license transfer fee to activate it. Still saved money over buying it new.
Those EQ inaccuracies are supposed to model the consoles they emulated. I know we are in the digital world and should fix them but bear in mind that the hardware EQ won't be exact like ProQ3 either. Nice to know however that console N is accurate, which means the EQ on a hardware Neve VXS and 88R are really accurate. The Neve VXS they modeled had 88R specs on the EQ and the preamp which they didn't model the preamp I don't think. Another way to check harmonics is a fundamental sweep for 1st order harmonic, and Hammerstein analysis to see the full spectrum of harmonics if any in the plugin. Great video BTW! 😎😎
Thank you. From what I understand, the THD knob on all the channels is the same algorithm and its used to replace the sound of the driven preamp. I personally do not like the sound of the THD very much. What you say is true. For me its a bit of a thin line, some inaccuracies of hardware translate in a rather shady way when it comes to software. Nonlinearities are always welcome in terms of harmonics, but EQ inaccuracies could be used to market dishonestly. I don't think that is the case here, but I'm saying its a very thin line. It would be just as easy to have an EQ band range button to allow for more subtle EQ movements, but this is just my opinion. As long as an informed decision can be made before a purchase, that's what matters most to me.
@@moksoundstudios agreed. I do love the BX console plugins. Especially the N. But another fun fact is the TMT was only modeled on the N. They used the same TMT from the N to all the other console plugins. Which means it has the tolerances from the Neve VXS and not SSL, AMEK, etc. I mean it kind of works. They can essentially model any console they want by just slapping in new EQ curves and compressor, leaving everything else the same, then adjust THD and V gain to match the console as much as possible. It's kind of dishonest for them to do that but then again not so much because it still gives the character of the console that is modeled. But yeah, Console N is their most "honest" console plugin. Your video did show me how to look for aliasing in plugin doctor, so I found that I need to oversample 2x or run a project at 88.2k minimum to have no audible aliasing with console N. Good stuff! 😎💯💯💯
@@vigilantestylez I'm sooooooo glad you mentioned that TMT fact! I didn't cover that in the videos, but that is another interesting fact. You articulated the thin line exactly! I'm really happy that I could help! 🙏🙏🙏
@@moksoundstudios You know what? Your video really sparked an interesting thought in my mind. I know that a lot of the really big mix engineers don't even bother with trying to do analog emulation, they treat the computer as it is digital, and mixing within it is digital and it's fine. If they need analog for anything they have access to it. Usually for like preamps, hardware compressors, or a tape machine. And that had me thinking, what is it that I like so much from these analog emulations? Probably the EQ curves! And probably the compressor! So I decided today to dust off the metric Halo channel strip, and do a super clean mix. No harmonics whatsoever, and then go to mix analog and use their tape machine, and run my mix through the tape machine. That sounded better than any of my plugins. Plus I don't have to use high sample rates when mixing, because aliasing is not an issue due to the fact that it's just a sterile digital channel strip. On my master bus I just used Pro C2 from FabFilter to do the bus compression. And that was it. The problem with these companies, is it's always the idea that you think you're getting some really expensive piece of hardware inside your computer. And a lot of the times it's just a sexy GUI, and that's about it. You think you have an SSL console in your computer, or a Neve console in your computer, and in all actuality you don't. This video really made me think a lot about that today. It's been on my mind all day. 😂😊 Bear in mind the metric halo channel strip does have cramping bells. However I'll just use shelves on the bottom and top, and use only the bells for the mid-range stuff. Of course I could probably just use Pro Q3 now I think about it, but I like having a channel strip to work with. Oh hell, I'll probably just use Pro Q3. Or maybe get that Kirchhoff EQ. 🤔
@@vigilantestylez I'm working on a Kirchhoff video as we speak 😊! You said a lot! This is why I tend to be attracted to convolution style plugins these days. I believe that the true happy place for the best possible outcome for engineers is a hybrid set up for that reason. Fabfilter are a perfect example of a company that has dominated the digital domain, and if you were to draw up a mock chart of what a hybrid setup would look like it would be to have the digital plugins like Fabfilter for the things that analog cannot do, but then having the analog equipment like the Neve MBP 2 for example that no software can really do. This would keep the engineer from wasting money on equipment they didn't need. Once you have a setup that checks all the bells and whistles, now its all about flavor and vibe which would mostly be analog.
Blind listening notes: mix a - thick drums more pronounced mids, slightly muddy/boomy bass mix b - organic drums, louder, fuller, more compressed but pleasant, punchy, easily the best sounding bass guitar mix c - plastic-y snare, big keys, slightly mid-scooped?, best sounding guitar mix d - nice bass thump, tight drums, similar to A above the bass frequencies but with less mid bump, best sounding keys mix e - tighter snare, slightly muddy upper-bass/low-mids on keys mix f - nice spit on the guitar, noticeable bass guitar, everything sounds bigger, best sounding snare, best sounding high-hats (the sticking sounds really nice), most articulate bass drum I listened to this as if I were going to master it, using the Neumann NDH-30. Overall the EQ on the snare doesn't sound right to me to begin with, but some of the plugins almost make up for it. I would be interested to hear this with the snare having more snap to it, and snare and bass drum feeling more in the mix, rather than behind it.
The only thing I feel strongly about is that I just don't prefer the sound of the SSL 4000-E plugin, and I confirmed that I still prefer the Neve sound despite 4000-G and 9000-J also sounding great (I liked them more than I expected). Aside from the 4000-E, the decision would be which flavor do I want for a given project.
IMHO The alliasing come across because of the gain stagin at 0 Db, if you run your material -18 for mixing the alias have a -80 to -100db aprox like the tape noise
Brainworx plugins cannot be directly compared one-to-one with FabFilter, as they are based on different concepts. FabFilter develops independent parametric EQs that precisely reflect exact numerical values. In contrast, Brainworx plugins are emulations of conventional channel strips, which may not always reflect numerical values exactly but rely more on sound adjustment by ear.
Just saw a video with plugin doctor analizing the SSL 4000 E, the plugin itself adds a high shelf on the highs. So if they calibrated the high shelf taking that in consideration, it will not be inaccurate. If it is not the case, maybe the hardware they modeled was in the wrong. And if that wasnt the case, well... we only have our ears to trust. I don't trust mine to be honest hahahaha, but oh well I will just boost/cut until I think is enough
Did you try changing the channel number on any of the strips? As each strip is modeled after the ENTIRE board and not a single channel, I'm willing to bet you'd get different measurements. The strips are meant to reflect the variations from channel to channel like an actual mixing console.
I've been never sit on the real consoles. but can the reason be, that the originals write eg 5db and PA simply "modeled" as the "real" ones shows? so the real ones maybe wrong and PA they copied it? (PA writes, that they are "approved" from the original manufactors
Wow, that's crazy! In there defense tho that is how real consoles work sometimes. When you boost 3dB at 5k on certain consoles the values shown on the console are not accurate to what's really happening. I don't think this shouldn't carry over to a plugin but I can see why it would be that way due to the modeling.
@@INeedsMoneys Sorry? I don't think I understand what you mean. What I said makes perfect sense. When they model a piece of hardware they model it exactly. Real analog gear does the same thing the plugins are doing. When you boost 3k on most analog eqs you aren't really boosting 3k. Analog eq's do not work like pro q3. They have tolerances that cause those inaccuracies. I don't agree with it. I think they should fix those problems when they make a digital version of the hardware. All I am saying is I understand why the plugins are the way they are. They try to model them as accurately as possible and that means not adjusting those kinds of issues and leaving them as they are on the gear they modeled.
@@matt_nyc_audioengineer if they are trying to emulate the analog hardware, why shouldn't the inaccuracies carry over to the plugin? That's the whole point. If you want exact eq with precision control over everything then you buy another eq that is made for that exact reason. There's A LOT of different eqs to buy. I think it is better that the console emulation plugins actually behave as close to the hardware as possible. Even if the hardware is wonky. 😋👍
Hey, I have a great idea. Remember how analog consoles could be defective and you wouldn’t know for sure? Let’s make digital emulations that mirror that enormous drawback. 👎🏼❌🤬😱
my problem is the Brainworx stuff doesn't even work any more without crashing Logic! I'm running macOS Ventura and Plugin-Alliance stated they have no idea when the plug-ins will be compatible. Money gone indeed!
Interesting find, so maybe i missed something but did you ever reveal which strip was on which mix? I found that mix F was the most open sounding with basically the rest interchangeable. thanks
Thought I responded to this already, sorry for the delay. Mix F was the 9000 J. I'm about to post which mixes were which consoles now. Check the community tab on the channel.
The only VST's I avoid like the plague are EQ VSTs (or Channel Strips) that were modeled after ancient hardware that has it's own "SOUND". That "sound" is merely the component path of old ass hardware that has been degraded over time, repaired with unmatched components, and had their chains broken down. It was what they had at the time and has been capitalized on by the plugin industry for marketing. If you want accurate EQs, don't EVER buy SSL or any EQ modeled as such (unless you've used that hardware for years). Other gear is fine as it's giving you the sound profile you want and doesn't require being as accurate these days. However, if your ear is good enough to listen to the changes you make and find what you were looking for, so be it. I myself would rather have accurate newly built ground up EQs. One exception is the PULSAR MASSIVE, it's spot on, but so are the Manley's, I used to own one so that's why I got the plugin. I want the lindell 69 since it has the Helios 69 EQ built in and is accurate for the 500 series hardware I had. It's great and was used on Beatles tracks and at Electric Ladyland and has some neat tricks, though I'd never use it when needing an accurate EQ. Lol
Even with everything maxed out on the E and G channels i don't have as much aliasing as this guy even at the lowest samplerate. I would be very interested in seeing the settings of the channel strips. it is very possible that the oversampling test is biased. Eq value innacuracies lol, do you even heard about knobs tolerance ? I get it, you just discovered how plugins are made and how to analyse them like 3 months ago but pls wait to learn a bit more before spreading false informations. You are not helping at all, quitte the opposite. cheers
I think the tmt feature is an excuse to compensate for their poor analog modeling in every other area. This variance is not realistic anyway, certainly not in the the way it's implemented. Real variance in analog is dynamic, and dependent on other factors, and compensated for but the engineer. Not static and arbitrarily scattered at random
I use PA channel strips all the time and my mixes have never sounded better. They are all different and good for different uses. If you understand sound color and textures you can do great things with these plugin. I use Lindell 80, SSL 9000J and Amek9099 in all my mixes and my clients love my mixes
@@moksoundstudios I think you're just one of the many haters because you bought plugins and you didn't liked it. No one has to buy plugins and if you do make sure you made the right choice.
@@hip-hop4life827 Wait, what?? He's a hater because he did tests? I demo every plugin I am thinking about buying and run it through plugin doctor first. Why? That's simple! Because I beta test for several large plugin developers and I KNOW as a fact that they misrepresent things sometimes and cut corners. He's certainly not a hater. Not for testing what a plugin does in plugin doctor. I think you are just a fanboy!!! 🤡
@@matt_nyc_audioengineer LMAO. His whole channel is about PA (almost all videos) so yes it looks like he's hating. Beta test is still Beta and not final version and besides of that if someone uses PluginDoctor it doesn't make him a genius in how everything work LMFAO. Waves, Slate Digital and others got similar issues so why bother.
@@hip-hop4life827 Never said he was a genius. Yes, that's while they are in beta but after they release them too. You know I do get the plugins once they are released too. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion dude but he's holding the company responsible. That's what he's doing. Take care dude.
That's their whole point on the TMT.. you've completely missed the point of it. Change the channel number and those values will change. Like a real console. If you watch Dan worral video which I'm sure you have as it seems like you're trying to emulate his style of video, you'll see his take on it. Which is similar to yours. Except he understands the plugin and how it works, and you don't seem to at all.
You should have flicked through the TMT channel numbers to show how each one differs. Which is what they're emulating. How resistors are not always on the nail. This is their tolerance value. Meaning how far above or below a stayed value actually is on a resistor. If it says 10k and has a 10% tolerance, it could actually be 9k. You didn't explain any of this so it seems you haven't read their marketing or the user manuals
I agree somewhat with Dan on this for sure. Why leave your mix decisions to random values. If you're not happy with your mix, randomly changing eq values probably won't help and certainly does not help you identify where your problems are lying. It's a silly feature really
@@MichaelDowComposer Good morning sunshine. Allow me to clarify for you: - I didn't go over TMT because I already did in another video -The plugins are giving the users inaccurate readings, I'm pointing it out. People should be made aware of that. Doesn't matter what the reasons are. If the plugin says +10 db but only +5db is raised, that needs to be pointed out. -Yes I could flick through all 72 channels but that would make this video longer than needed, so I kept it on channel 1. Anyone can download the demo and flick through all 72 channels for themselves. I make videos assuming that everyone is trying to do this professionally, so I try to keep the videos as short as possible. That's why I focus on things like EQ inaccuracies (regardless of reason, that's what it is) or aliasing and oversampling problems. -Nice touch of trying to accuse me of copying Dan by the way. I'm not Dan, nor am I attempting to copy him (which is not possible, the man is not only gifted he is extremely knowledgeable), but in the spirit of Dan I will end this conversation with "Ok that's all, thanks for commenting".
Not wrong…. But not really useful. Big one - the inaccuracies in the various EQ readings…. NO ONE MIXES BY THE DIALS. We mix with our ears. In a sense, it doesn’t even matter what the labels say because we don’t use them only by the labels. Seriously, nobody mixes(or records) with the speakers off. We all go by what we hear. We turn the dials until we like it, then we stop. No one cares what the label around the knob says. In summary: he is testing what he says he’s testing, and the results he is showing us are correct. But they really have nothing to do with how we use these devices, be they analog hardware or software versions. It’s a well made video but it’s a conversation that has entirely missed the point.
The channel-to-channel inconsistency ‘feature’ is the single worst idea EVER! How ridiculous is it to offer an emulation, then make it malfunction deliberately. I come from the days of analog consoles, having owned MCI, Amek, Midas, and other small ones. The fact their channels didn’t match is a massive fail! So someone adds that to a plug-in. I’m literally without words for how stupid that is. Thanks for hearing my rant.
@@keithferris9574 My big issue is the knob tolerance for digital EQ's. I understand why some people would like it since its emulating the analog hardware, but I don't quite care for it. Love it for analog though.
you don’t know what you’re talking about friend. worrall knows his stuff. also real consoles behave very similar. inconsistent all over the place. use your ears not your eyes.
I'll explain to you the same thing I explained in a separate comment: "The analog world was about ears not eyes because these were physical pieces of equipment that degraded, voltage inconsistencies, old internal hardware parts like tubes transformers, basically chaos theory. Then the digital world came and brought us tools that required our eyes, highly specific programming and binary code, algorithms that create the exact same result over and over and the like, and now we are in an in-between. I'm ok with modeling a console that has inaccuracies, but its the inaccurate readings that indicate corner cutting. If I'm going to mix using an SSL channel strip for example, and it has the inconsistencies of the actual console which I am totally OK with, don't give me inaccurate readings. I know its not a mistake to model the equipment, but it is a mistake to then have visual aid that is intentionally misleading, even if its in the name of authenticity. See what I mean."
UPDATE: Found a few more things that I missed in this video. Here are the things I found:
1. 9000-J adds harmonics when you engage the dynamics chain, but the EQ doesn't add anything,
2. 4000-E and 4000-G add harmonics in the EQ AND add some harmonics when engaging the dynamics chain but only if the SC is disengaged.
3. Amek does add a single harmonic in the comp.
Subscriber shoutout to @Hugelongjohns for inspiring me to look deeper
My channel is still very small but I have amazing subscribers already lol.
The compressor on the Amek not having harmonics is expected because the desk they are modeling has DSP plugins. Meaning each channel has a A/D converter and the dynamics processing is all digital. Thus no harmonics. actually I was disappointed in their compressor, not because of harmonics, but because the original desk gave you multiple compressors and gates! Something that was pretty neat on an analog board. Missed opportunity by BX, but I can see that maybe it was a legality thing but who knows.
Personally, I wouldn't fault Brainworx on whether the SSL channels strip "isn't 3 dB exactly," or not. I nwas told many years ago by Bob Ludwig, no less, that "the SSL eq isn't really x value of dB..." His point was that his mastering eq was far more accurate than ANY console's channel eq. After I heard that I never really looked back. In my practice, I don't look at the numbers too, too much; I judge th amounts by ear. Trust your ears, not your yes, people.
Great point, it's about whether it gives you what your looking for or not.
You just crank the boost... Find the frequency... Then scale down the boost to the sweet spot... You're never looking at the dB
Same goes for the cut... With some tweaks at the Q
Nice video. I like 9000J a lot, used it on all my mixes until I found channelstrip2 from SSL. Now they released 4kB too.
I think you might be missing the point as far as the EQ discrepancies go.. as far as I am aware, these plugins are modelled on actual physical desks so I would imagine they matched the EQ curves - worts and all. They encourage you to mix with your ears.. try not to focus too much of numeric values.
I do however agree that the fact they appear to be using the exact same modelling for the THD is a bit shady.
Thanks for the video. It was interesting.
That's the problem though. They didn't model on the desk. Watch Dan Worall's video.
Test the HP filter on the SSL9000, it's the worst of them all if you're comparing numbers for numbers in plugin doctor!
But again, it's emulating the imperfections of the console. So, we have to trust our ears at the end.
That's why I always say to demo the plugin.
Yup, the HP filter is the one where it's really obvious, you have to really dig into it! The 4KE has a great HP filter, imho, very nice resonance bump when you sweep anywhere between 100 and 250 : )
I would imagine that's probably how the orignal consoles were. I have console N and the 4000E and I like N the most by far.
The console N is probably my favorite out off all of the brainworx channel strips.
My considerations: A=neutral, B=louder and more higher transients, C= low and high end are tamed, D=nice low end. E and F would not be my choice. Waiting for the blind test results.
Very clever changing to EQ values so they sound more smooth, but really they're just not boosting as much. Still, I really like the Brainworx channel strip that I have, which is the Focusrite, though it might be best to use as little saturation as possible, then run a separate saturation plugin with oversampling. I like the Analog Obsession plugins, which offer lots of saturation options.
Crazy that's why people say I like the 4000 E because you can go nuts with the EQ really crank it and it still sounds good.
BrainWorx has some decent artist endorsements, but I never use the few freebies that I acquired from them last year. I find there’s a certain murkiness to them similar to many Waves plug-ins. And as mentioned here, they aren’t exactly cheap. My main work horse plugins are Soundtoys, Sonnox and Pulsar. And don’t forget your DAW’s plug-ins. Good video ✌️
bro i thought i was the only one, i found the focusrite channel strip murky as well, i find my self wanting to use it but i dont get the results I'm looking, i just ended going for the waves Rchannel, much simpler to use
@@joakimjocka8022 Dude, if you want crispy and airy, you can't beat Sonnox Inflator or the Limiter/Compressor. They've been a secret weapon on countless recordings. Both on sale now. Only thing I don't like is that you have to be online to use it. But it's worth the sale price.
I'll also swear by Pulsar's 1178. It's incredibly versatile whether on a channel, Bus mix or Master bus. Pair that with Pulsar Massive EQ? And it's clean and creamy. The 1178 is a rare bird that was basically an 1176 but two channels. The Massive is probably the best replica of a Manley. Another staple in major studios. Both on sale now too. You can demo if you want as well. Good luck! ✌
Weird that you mention Soundtoys. Decapitator for example, has aliasing even on medium settings. Sounds good tho.
@@lordberly I was aware of the conversation about Decapitator and its "aliasing." The official consensus is that independent tests have found its aliasing to be at inaudible levels. (Unlike some other plugins). In this context, for me it's like worrying about an LFO that only elephants can hear. So, not only do I love my LFO's for modulating those furry saw tooth waves... I LOVE my Decapitator. Try it on a brass section for film score? You've entered the Matrix 😉 It's still a big go-to for many top engineers today. Glad you like it too. ✌
@@gt4032 Yep, always buy when on sale. They have sales frequently so i I find a plugin interesting, I'll just wait...All the popular ones basically rotate on sale.
i like the sound of plugin D wonder if it's the neve where can we find those results bro?
You'll find the results on the community tab.
Important to note that what kind of sounds like a'' mistake'' when you talk about it in the video, is fully intentional. This is not a straight digital EQ, but rather...*modelling*. Which means when you boost say 4k on the channel strip, you're not boosting 4k, but simply 'roughly around that area' - just like on the actual SSL console does. The consoles are like that, and that's one of the things they modelled, the curves.
The Bx N console has tighter correspondences with the knob values, which they also modelled. That one, independent of that fact, is also my favorite.
What you say is true about the console, but in the software world, from my observations this also walks a thin line towards being misleading. Humor me for a moment: The analog world was about ears not eyes because these were physical pieces of equipment that degraded, voltage inconsistencies, old internal hardware parts like tubes transformers, basically chaos theory. Then the digital world came and brought us tools that required our eyes, highly specific programming and binary code, algorithms that create the exact same result over and over and the like, and now we are in an in-between. I'm ok with modeling a console that has inaccuracies, but its the inaccurate readings that indicate corner cutting. If I'm going to mix using an SSL channel strip for example, and it has the inconsistencies of the actual console which I am totally OK with, don't give me inaccurate readings. I know its not a mistake to model the equipment, but it is a mistake to then have visual aid that is intentionally misleading, even if its in the name of authenticity. See what I mean.
@@moksoundstudios I'm not sure I follow you entirely, although I get some of what you mean.
It's not anymore 'inaccurate' than the consoles, nor is it more misleading than the consoles even with the digital vs analog thing taken into account.
When people think they are boosting 8k on the console, they are boosting the same freqs as this model. Many engineers thought they boosted 8 k for decades, when they weren't. They thought they were cutting lows under 150 when they weren't. And that's fine, because it's the ears that count, and the result. You boost and cut what sounds good.
That is the same in the digital domain. I don't see any difference when it comes to the overall truth of that statement.
That's not cutting any corners from the developers; it's making sure that those used to working on the original consoles get a sound and feel as close to the original as possible, as well as making sure they can claim that the emulation is as true as possible.
Now. that said...I will give you this:
The VERY best solution would have been to include a switch on all these channelstrip emulation called "True freq mode", that turned on the digital accuracy we're used to from standard digital EQs.
They wouldn't have to do that, as that does MORE than the modelling promises, but that would have given the user a choice.
Also, I think it's a mistake not to include the oversampling, as the BX consoles benefit greatly from OSx2.
The OSx2 is the final piece of the puzzle that makes the BX consoles among the very best options available, period .
(I personally have them loading directly into Reaper with OSx2 already engaged using Reapers brilliant OS feature in combination with its fX chain option, which allows me to always recall the BX plugins WITH the OSx2 already engaged....but this should be an option to everyone, non Reaper users included.)
@@blackswanstudios6632 You did sort of miss where I was going with it. You are not wrong about what you are saying, but I do think my position is misunderstood. I'll be making a video about this because I get a lot of comments pertaining to this, and it will be easier for me to clarify with a video. That's why I say I'm in the minority on the whole emulating analog thing when it comes to EQ's.
@@moksoundstudios I'd be curious to see where you think I missed it, because there really is no "logical space" for me to overlook, unless you're talking about a different aspect that you didn't fully adress yet, in the case I look foward to the video.
Some plugins do have a resale value. I've purchased used plugins before and had to pay $20 license transfer fee to activate it. Still saved money over buying it new.
Those EQ inaccuracies are supposed to model the consoles they emulated. I know we are in the digital world and should fix them but bear in mind that the hardware EQ won't be exact like ProQ3 either. Nice to know however that console N is accurate, which means the EQ on a hardware Neve VXS and 88R are really accurate. The Neve VXS they modeled had 88R specs on the EQ and the preamp which they didn't model the preamp I don't think. Another way to check harmonics is a fundamental sweep for 1st order harmonic, and Hammerstein analysis to see the full spectrum of harmonics if any in the plugin. Great video BTW! 😎😎
Thank you. From what I understand, the THD knob on all the channels is the same algorithm and its used to replace the sound of the driven preamp. I personally do not like the sound of the THD very much. What you say is true. For me its a bit of a thin line, some inaccuracies of hardware translate in a rather shady way when it comes to software. Nonlinearities are always welcome in terms of harmonics, but EQ inaccuracies could be used to market dishonestly. I don't think that is the case here, but I'm saying its a very thin line. It would be just as easy to have an EQ band range button to allow for more subtle EQ movements, but this is just my opinion. As long as an informed decision can be made before a purchase, that's what matters most to me.
@@moksoundstudios agreed. I do love the BX console plugins. Especially the N. But another fun fact is the TMT was only modeled on the N. They used the same TMT from the N to all the other console plugins. Which means it has the tolerances from the Neve VXS and not SSL, AMEK, etc. I mean it kind of works. They can essentially model any console they want by just slapping in new EQ curves and compressor, leaving everything else the same, then adjust THD and V gain to match the console as much as possible. It's kind of dishonest for them to do that but then again not so much because it still gives the character of the console that is modeled. But yeah, Console N is their most "honest" console plugin. Your video did show me how to look for aliasing in plugin doctor, so I found that I need to oversample 2x or run a project at 88.2k minimum to have no audible aliasing with console N. Good stuff! 😎💯💯💯
@@vigilantestylez I'm sooooooo glad you mentioned that TMT fact! I didn't cover that in the videos, but that is another interesting fact. You articulated the thin line exactly! I'm really happy that I could help! 🙏🙏🙏
@@moksoundstudios You know what? Your video really sparked an interesting thought in my mind. I know that a lot of the really big mix engineers don't even bother with trying to do analog emulation, they treat the computer as it is digital, and mixing within it is digital and it's fine. If they need analog for anything they have access to it. Usually for like preamps, hardware compressors, or a tape machine. And that had me thinking, what is it that I like so much from these analog emulations? Probably the EQ curves! And probably the compressor! So I decided today to dust off the metric Halo channel strip, and do a super clean mix. No harmonics whatsoever, and then go to mix analog and use their tape machine, and run my mix through the tape machine. That sounded better than any of my plugins. Plus I don't have to use high sample rates when mixing, because aliasing is not an issue due to the fact that it's just a sterile digital channel strip. On my master bus I just used Pro C2 from FabFilter to do the bus compression. And that was it.
The problem with these companies, is it's always the idea that you think you're getting some really expensive piece of hardware inside your computer. And a lot of the times it's just a sexy GUI, and that's about it. You think you have an SSL console in your computer, or a Neve console in your computer, and in all actuality you don't. This video really made me think a lot about that today. It's been on my mind all day. 😂😊
Bear in mind the metric halo channel strip does have cramping bells. However I'll just use shelves on the bottom and top, and use only the bells for the mid-range stuff. Of course I could probably just use Pro Q3 now I think about it, but I like having a channel strip to work with. Oh hell, I'll probably just use Pro Q3. Or maybe get that Kirchhoff EQ. 🤔
@@vigilantestylez I'm working on a Kirchhoff video as we speak 😊! You said a lot! This is why I tend to be attracted to convolution style plugins these days. I believe that the true happy place for the best possible outcome for engineers is a hybrid set up for that reason. Fabfilter are a perfect example of a company that has dominated the digital domain, and if you were to draw up a mock chart of what a hybrid setup would look like it would be to have the digital plugins like Fabfilter for the things that analog cannot do, but then having the analog equipment like the Neve MBP 2 for example that no software can really do. This would keep the engineer from wasting money on equipment they didn't need. Once you have a setup that checks all the bells and whistles, now its all about flavor and vibe which would mostly be analog.
Blind listening notes:
mix a - thick drums more pronounced mids, slightly muddy/boomy bass
mix b - organic drums, louder, fuller, more compressed but pleasant, punchy, easily the best sounding bass guitar
mix c - plastic-y snare, big keys, slightly mid-scooped?, best sounding guitar
mix d - nice bass thump, tight drums, similar to A above the bass frequencies but with less mid bump, best sounding keys
mix e - tighter snare, slightly muddy upper-bass/low-mids on keys
mix f - nice spit on the guitar, noticeable bass guitar, everything sounds bigger, best sounding snare, best sounding high-hats (the sticking sounds really nice), most articulate bass drum
I listened to this as if I were going to master it, using the Neumann NDH-30. Overall the EQ on the snare doesn't sound right to me to begin with, but some of the plugins almost make up for it. I would be interested to hear this with the snare having more snap to it, and snare and bass drum feeling more in the mix, rather than behind it.
The only thing I feel strongly about is that I just don't prefer the sound of the SSL 4000-E plugin, and I confirmed that I still prefer the Neve sound despite 4000-G and 9000-J also sounding great (I liked them more than I expected). Aside from the 4000-E, the decision would be which flavor do I want for a given project.
what is the solution to the blind test?
IMHO The alliasing come across because of the gain stagin at 0 Db, if you run your material -18 for mixing the alias have a -80 to -100db aprox like the tape noise
Brainworx plugins cannot be directly compared one-to-one with FabFilter, as they are based on different concepts. FabFilter develops independent parametric EQs that precisely reflect exact numerical values. In contrast, Brainworx plugins are emulations of conventional channel strips, which may not always reflect numerical values exactly but rely more on sound adjustment by ear.
Just saw a video with plugin doctor analizing the SSL 4000 E, the plugin itself adds a high shelf on the highs. So if they calibrated the high shelf taking that in consideration, it will not be inaccurate. If it is not the case, maybe the hardware they modeled was in the wrong. And if that wasnt the case, well... we only have our ears to trust. I don't trust mine to be honest hahahaha, but oh well I will just boost/cut until I think is enough
Another episode of my…synth busters! 😍
Ima try this with 4000 g waves/bx I’m curious now
Did you try changing the channel number on any of the strips? As each strip is modeled after the ENTIRE board and not a single channel, I'm willing to bet you'd get different measurements. The strips are meant to reflect the variations from channel to channel like an actual mixing console.
Love the videos bro 😜👍🏽 New Sub! 🎉
Have them all use them all but nothing beats the SSL stuff tbh.
Great video but you should still post which mix is done with which console.
Its posted on the community tab.
Good to know, I been avoiding the Console N, but now I might give it some time.
The console N is probably my favorite out of the bunch.
I've been never sit on the real consoles. but can the reason be, that the originals write eg 5db and PA simply "modeled" as the "real" ones shows? so the real ones maybe wrong and PA they copied it? (PA writes, that they are "approved" from the original manufactors
I don't know honestly. I haven't had enough experience with different consoles to know if they work that way.
I like that it’s not precise actually…if it were, why bother with different flavors of things?
Wow, that's crazy! In there defense tho that is how real consoles work sometimes. When you boost 3dB at 5k on certain consoles the values shown on the console are not accurate to what's really happening. I don't think this shouldn't carry over to a plugin but I can see why it would be that way due to the modeling.
I don’t get your logic mate..
@@INeedsMoneys Sorry? I don't think I understand what you mean. What I said makes perfect sense. When they model a piece of hardware they model it exactly. Real analog gear does the same thing the plugins are doing. When you boost 3k on most analog eqs you aren't really boosting 3k. Analog eq's do not work like pro q3. They have tolerances that cause those inaccuracies. I don't agree with it. I think they should fix those problems when they make a digital version of the hardware. All I am saying is I understand why the plugins are the way they are. They try to model them as accurately as possible and that means not adjusting those kinds of issues and leaving them as they are on the gear they modeled.
@@matt_nyc_audioengineer if they are trying to emulate the analog hardware, why shouldn't the inaccuracies carry over to the plugin? That's the whole point. If you want exact eq with precision control over everything then you buy another eq that is made for that exact reason. There's A LOT of different eqs to buy. I think it is better that the console emulation plugins actually behave as close to the hardware as possible. Even if the hardware is wonky. 😋👍
@@INeedsMoneys Ok, cool. 👍🏻
Hey, I have a great idea. Remember how analog consoles could be defective and you wouldn’t know for sure? Let’s make digital emulations that mirror that enormous drawback. 👎🏼❌🤬😱
I like F is it focusrite???
No, its the SSL 9000 J.
me too
@@moksoundstudios very insightful content what was D??
my problem is the Brainworx stuff doesn't even work any more without crashing Logic! I'm running macOS Ventura and Plugin-Alliance stated they have no idea when the plug-ins will be compatible. Money gone indeed!
Interesting find, so maybe i missed something but did you ever reveal which strip was on which mix? I found that mix F was the most open sounding with basically the rest interchangeable. thanks
Thought I responded to this already, sorry for the delay. Mix F was the 9000 J. I'm about to post which mixes were which consoles now. Check the community tab on the channel.
The only VST's I avoid like the plague are EQ VSTs (or Channel Strips) that were modeled after ancient hardware that has it's own "SOUND". That "sound" is merely the component path of old ass hardware that has been degraded over time, repaired with unmatched components, and had their chains broken down. It was what they had at the time and has been capitalized on by the plugin industry for marketing.
If you want accurate EQs, don't EVER buy SSL or any EQ modeled as such (unless you've used that hardware for years). Other gear is fine as it's giving you the sound profile you want and doesn't require being as accurate these days. However, if your ear is good enough to listen to the changes you make and find what you were looking for, so be it. I myself would rather have accurate newly built ground up EQs. One exception is the PULSAR MASSIVE, it's spot on, but so are the Manley's, I used to own one so that's why I got the plugin.
I want the lindell 69 since it has the Helios 69 EQ built in and is accurate for the 500 series hardware I had. It's great and was used on Beatles tracks and at Electric Ladyland and has some neat tricks, though I'd never use it when needing an accurate EQ. Lol
Dude, it has been mentioned , these consoles mimick how the the old consoles actually work. They are supposed to be not perfect.
Dan Worall vibes. Love your videos!
Thank you. Dan is phenomenal! He is a huge inspiration for me.
What’s B? Where are the results?
i think plugin doctor has done a huge disservice to audio engineers. people dont even make music anymore they just do whatever the hell this is lol
Even with everything maxed out on the E and G channels i don't have as much aliasing as this guy even at the lowest samplerate. I would be very interested in seeing the settings of the channel strips. it is very possible that the oversampling test is biased. Eq value innacuracies lol, do you even heard about knobs tolerance ? I get it, you just discovered how plugins are made and how to analyse them like 3 months ago but pls wait to learn a bit more before spreading false informations. You are not helping at all, quitte the opposite. cheers
I agree, a bit too much inaccurate / false information. But i guess we learn as we go and hopefully he will correct his mistakes 👍
I like mix b the best
I think the tmt feature is an excuse to compensate for their poor analog modeling in every other area. This variance is not realistic anyway, certainly not in the the way it's implemented. Real variance in analog is dynamic, and dependent on other factors, and compensated for but the engineer. Not static and arbitrarily scattered at random
This echo's my sentiment exactly.
Softube Pultec analysis please?!
I'm working on a number of videos as we speak and the Softube Pultec is one of them 😎.
I use PA channel strips all the time and my mixes have never sounded better. They are all different and good for different uses. If you understand sound color and textures you can do great things with these plugin. I use Lindell 80, SSL 9000J and Amek9099 in all my mixes and my clients love my mixes
Never said they were low quality, just presenting the analysis. That's why I always say to demo a plugin and see how it works for you.
@@moksoundstudios I think you're just one of the many haters because you bought plugins and you didn't liked it. No one has to buy plugins and if you do make sure you made the right choice.
@@hip-hop4life827 Wait, what?? He's a hater because he did tests? I demo every plugin I am thinking about buying and run it through plugin doctor first. Why? That's simple! Because I beta test for several large plugin developers and I KNOW as a fact that they misrepresent things sometimes and cut corners. He's certainly not a hater. Not for testing what a plugin does in plugin doctor. I think you are just a fanboy!!! 🤡
@@matt_nyc_audioengineer LMAO. His whole channel is about PA (almost all videos) so yes it looks like he's hating. Beta test is still Beta and not final version and besides of that if someone uses PluginDoctor it doesn't make him a genius in how everything work LMFAO. Waves, Slate Digital and others got similar issues so why bother.
@@hip-hop4life827 Never said he was a genius. Yes, that's while they are in beta but after they release them too. You know I do get the plugins once they are released too. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion dude but he's holding the company responsible. That's what he's doing. Take care dude.
That's their whole point on the TMT.. you've completely missed the point of it. Change the channel number and those values will change. Like a real console. If you watch Dan worral video which I'm sure you have as it seems like you're trying to emulate his style of video, you'll see his take on it. Which is similar to yours. Except he understands the plugin and how it works, and you don't seem to at all.
You should have flicked through the TMT channel numbers to show how each one differs. Which is what they're emulating. How resistors are not always on the nail. This is their tolerance value. Meaning how far above or below a stayed value actually is on a resistor. If it says 10k and has a 10% tolerance, it could actually be 9k.
You didn't explain any of this so it seems you haven't read their marketing or the user manuals
I agree somewhat with Dan on this for sure. Why leave your mix decisions to random values. If you're not happy with your mix, randomly changing eq values probably won't help and certainly does not help you identify where your problems are lying. It's a silly feature really
@@MichaelDowComposer Good morning sunshine. Allow me to clarify for you:
- I didn't go over TMT because I already did in another video
-The plugins are giving the users inaccurate readings, I'm pointing it out. People should be made aware of that. Doesn't matter what the reasons are. If the plugin says +10 db but only +5db is raised, that needs to be pointed out.
-Yes I could flick through all 72 channels but that would make this video longer than needed, so I kept it on channel 1. Anyone can download the demo and flick through all 72 channels for themselves. I make videos assuming that everyone is trying to do this professionally, so I try to keep the videos as short as possible. That's why I focus on things like EQ inaccuracies (regardless of reason, that's what it is) or aliasing and oversampling problems.
-Nice touch of trying to accuse me of copying Dan by the way. I'm not Dan, nor am I attempting to copy him (which is not possible, the man is not only gifted he is extremely knowledgeable), but in the spirit of Dan I will end this conversation with "Ok that's all, thanks for commenting".
Not wrong…. But not really useful.
Big one - the inaccuracies in the various EQ readings…. NO ONE MIXES BY THE DIALS. We mix with our ears. In a sense, it doesn’t even matter what the labels say because we don’t use them only by the labels.
Seriously, nobody mixes(or records) with the speakers off. We all go by what we hear. We turn the dials until we like it, then we stop. No one cares what the label around the knob says.
In summary: he is testing what he says he’s testing, and the results he is showing us are correct.
But they really have nothing to do with how we use these devices, be they analog hardware or software versions.
It’s a well made video but it’s a conversation that has entirely missed the point.
The channel-to-channel inconsistency ‘feature’ is the single worst idea EVER! How ridiculous is it to offer an emulation, then make it malfunction deliberately. I come from the days of analog consoles, having owned MCI, Amek, Midas, and other small ones. The fact their channels didn’t match is a massive fail! So someone adds that to a plug-in. I’m literally without words for how stupid that is. Thanks for hearing my rant.
lol its ok. I understand your perspective. I'll be making a video about my perspective on this soon.
@@moksoundstudios I’ll look forward to it.
Funny how professional mixers will tell you that the imperfections add sonic character.
@@keithferris9574 My big issue is the knob tolerance for digital EQ's. I understand why some people would like it since its emulating the analog hardware, but I don't quite care for it. Love it for analog though.
Happy you didn't include the Lindell, they are very sub par and low quality I replaced them with the softube British and American class A.
you don’t know what you’re talking about friend. worrall knows his stuff. also real consoles behave very similar. inconsistent all over the place. use your ears not your eyes.
I'll explain to you the same thing I explained in a separate comment:
"The analog world was about ears not eyes because these were physical pieces of equipment that degraded, voltage inconsistencies, old internal hardware parts like tubes transformers, basically chaos theory. Then the digital world came and brought us tools that required our eyes, highly specific programming and binary code, algorithms that create the exact same result over and over and the like, and now we are in an in-between. I'm ok with modeling a console that has inaccuracies, but its the inaccurate readings that indicate corner cutting. If I'm going to mix using an SSL channel strip for example, and it has the inconsistencies of the actual console which I am totally OK with, don't give me inaccurate readings. I know its not a mistake to model the equipment, but it is a mistake to then have visual aid that is intentionally misleading, even if its in the name of authenticity. See what I mean."
I don't know why people keep bring up Dan Worrall as a defense. He doesn't like TMT either.